Effects of Foam Roller, and Massage Ball with and Without Vibration on Squat Load-Velocity Profile of Resistance Trained Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Self-massage tools such as foam rollers and massage balls are widely used in warm-ups and recovery, but their effects on dynamic strength tasks like squatting remain unclear. To compare the effects of a foam roller (FR), massage ball (MB), and vibrating massage ball (MBV) versus a control condition on squat load velocity profiles and associated electromyographic (EMG) activity in resistance-trained individuals. In this crossover study, fourteen experienced resistance-trained participants performed four experimental conditions: FR, MB, MBV, and control. After an initial session for incremental load testing and protocol familiarization, each participant performed eight back squats before and after each experimental session, while movement velocity, hip vertical displacement (range of motion), and EMG of the vastus lateralis and semimembranosus were recorded. MBV produced a significant increase in quadriceps EMG during the fastest repetition (β = 0.107; p = 0.003). In contrast, all interventions elicited a reduction in the second fastest repetition versus control (FR: β = -0.033, p = 0.005; MB: β = -0.025, p = 0.029; MBV: β = -0.036, p = 0.002). Moreover, both FR and MBV similarly decreased third fastest repetition and mean velocities relative to control (FR: third fastest repetition β = -0.025, p = 0.027; mean β = -0.046, p = 0.046; MBV: third fastest repetition β = -0.032, p = 0.005; mean velocity β = -0.031, p = 0.004). There were no significant changes in the hip vertical displacement. All self-massage conditions modestly impaired squat velocity, with the MB showing the least detrimental effect on performance.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".