Effect of Foam Rolling and Static Stretching on Passive Hip-Flexion Range of Motion

2014 ◽  
Vol 23 (4) ◽  
pp. 296-299 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew R. Mohr ◽  
Blaine C. Long ◽  
Carla L. Goad
Keyword(s):  
Range Of Motion ◽  
Outcome Measure ◽  
Lower Extremity Injury ◽  
Static Stretching ◽  
Static Stretch ◽  
Main Outcome Measure ◽  
Foam Rolling ◽  
Significant Change ◽  
Hip Flexion ◽  
And Control

Context:Many athletes report that foam rollers help release tension in their muscles, thus resulting in greater range of motion (ROM) when used before stretching. To date, no investigators have examined foam rollers and static stretching.Objective:To determine if foam rolling before static stretching produces a significant change in passive hip-flexion ROM.Design:Controlled laboratory study.Setting:Research laboratory.Participants:40 subjects with less than 90° of passive hip-flexion ROM and no lower-extremity injury in the 6 mo before data collection.Interventions:During each of 6 sessions, subjects' passive hip-flexion ROM was measured before and immediately after static stretching, foam rolling and static stretching, foam rolling, or nothing (control). To minimize accessory movement of the hip and contralateral leg, subjects lay supine with a strap placed across their hip and another strap located over the uninvolved leg just superior to the patella. A bubble inclinometer was then aligned on the thigh of the involved leg, with which subjects then performed hip flexion.Main Outcome Measure:Change in passive hip-flexion ROM from the preintervention measure on day 1 to the postintervention measure on day 6.Results:There was a significant change in passive hip-flexion ROM regardless of treatment (F3,17 = 8.06, P = .001). Subjects receiving foam roll and static stretch had a greater change in passive hip-flexion ROM compared with the static-stretch (P = .04), foam-rolling (P = .006), and control (P = .001) groups.Conclusions:Our results support the use of a foam roller in combination with a static-stretching protocol. If time allows and maximal gains in hip-flexion ROM are desired, foam rolling the hamstrings muscle group before static stretching would be appropriate in noninjured subjects who have less than 90° of hamstring ROM.

Effects of Different Heating Modalities on Hip Flexion Passive Range of Motion

2012 ◽  
Vol 17 (6) ◽  
pp. 27-30 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew Hanson ◽  
James Day
Keyword(s):  
Range Of Motion ◽  
Repeated Measures ◽  
Outcome Measure ◽  
Main Outcome Measure ◽  
Therapeutic Modalities ◽  
Tissue Heating ◽  
Repeated Measures Analysis ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Hip Flexion ◽  
Hot Pack

Context:Therapeutic modalities are routinely administered to increase fexibility, but the relative effects of different modes of tissue heating on passive range of motion (PROM) are unknown.Objective:To assess the relative effects of active exercise on a stationary bicycle, moist hot pack treatment, and warm whirlpool treatment on hip fexion PROM.Design:Repeated measures.Subjects:24 males and 20 females between the ages 18 and 24 years.Main Outcome MeasureHip fexion PROM measured by an inclinometer.Results:Repeated measures analysis of variance identified a significant difference among the heating methods, F(1, 43) = 32.41;p< .001. Active exercise produced the greatest change in hip fexion PROM.Conclusions:All three treatment methods produced an increase in hip fexion PROM, but active exercise produced a significantly greater increase than moist hot pack and warm whirlpool treatments.

Effect of Static Stretching, Dynamic Stretching, and Myofascial Foam Rolling on Range of Motion During Hip Flexion

2020 ◽  
Vol Publish Ahead of Print ◽  
Author(s):  
Tobias Siebert ◽  
Lars Donath ◽  
Mischa Borsdorf ◽  
Norman Stutzig
Keyword(s):  
Range Of Motion ◽  
Static Stretching ◽  
Dynamic Stretching ◽  
Foam Rolling ◽  
Hip Flexion

scholarly journals Acute Comparative Effect of Foam Rolling and Static Stretching on Range of Motion in Rowers

2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (7) ◽  
pp. 3631
Author(s):  
Alfonso Penichet-Tomas ◽  
Basilio Pueo ◽  
Marta Abad-Lopez ◽  
Jose M. Jimenez-Olmedo
Keyword(s):  
Range Of Motion ◽  
Repeated Measures ◽  
Static Stretching ◽  
Foam Rolling ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Post Test ◽  
Alternating Treatment Design ◽  
Stroke Amplitude ◽  
Treatment Design ◽  
Over Time

Rowers’ anthropometric characteristics and flexibility are fundamental to increase stroke amplitude and optimize power transfer. The aim of the present study was to analyze the effect of foam rolling and static stretching on the range of motion over time. Eight university rowers (24.8 ± 3.4 yrs., height 182.3 ± 6.5 cm, body mass 79.3 ± 4.6 kg) participated in an alternating treatment design study with two-way repeated measures ANOVA. The sit and reach test was used to measure the range of motion. Both in the foam rolling and in the static stretching method, a pre-test (T0), a post-test (T1), and a post-15-min test (T2) were performed. A significant effect was observed on the range of motion over time (p < 0.001), but not for time x method interaction (p = 0.680). Significant differences were found between T0 and T1 with foam rolling and static stretching (p < 0.001, d = 0.4); p < 0.001, d = 0.6). The differences between T0 and T2 were also significant with both methods (p = 0.001, d = 0.4; p < 0.001, d = 0.4). However, no significant difference was observed between T1 and T2 (p = 1.000, d = 0.1; p = 0.089, d = 0.2). Foam roller and static stretching seem to be effective methods to improve the range of motion but there seems to be no differences between them.

Comparison between 4 weeks passive static stretching and proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation programmes on neuromuscular properties of hamstring muscles: a randomised clinical trial

2020 ◽  
Vol 27 (3) ◽  
pp. 1-11
Author(s):  
Anelize Cini ◽  
Gabriela Souza de Vasconcelos ◽  
Milena Caumo Soligo ◽  
Cassiele Felappi ◽  
Rodrigo Rodrigues ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Range Of Motion ◽  
Structural Changes ◽  
Randomised Clinical Trial ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Static Stretching ◽  
Hamstring Muscles ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Before And After ◽  
Group A ◽  
Hip Flexion

Background/aims Studies have shown the efficacy of stretching to increase the hip flexion range of motion but studies regarding its effects are not unanimous about the most efficient technique. The aim of this study was to compare the effect of two stretching techniques on the neuromuscular properties of the hamstring muscles. Methods A total of 18 women (aged 24 ± 2.52 years old) participated, and were divided into three groups: a control group, a passive static stretching group and a propioceptive neuromuscular facilitation stretching group. Evaluations of variables of the hamstring muscles were performed before and after the training period. The intervention was carried out for 30 seconds, three times a week for a total of 4 weeks. Results A significant difference was found in the range of motion in the passive static stretching group (pre=80.8° [±11.0] and post=94.5° [±10.2]; t(5)=−3.755; P=0.013) and in concentric torque (passive static stretching group – pre=66.3 Nm [±12.9] and post=70.0 Nm [±8.1]; t(5)=−1.267; P=0.023; propioceptive neuromuscular facilitation stretching group – pre=79.1 Nm [±12.7] and post=83.5 Nm [±11.6]; t(5)=−1.917; P=0.014; control group – pre=71.1 Nm [±10.1] and post=74.1 Nm [±14.6]; t(5)=−1.275; P=0.003). Conclusions Passive static stretching was superior to propioceptive neuromuscular facilitation when comparing the increase range of motion in hip flexion, even without neural and structural changes in hamstring muscles after a 4-week period.

The Effect of 4 Different Durations of Static Hamstring Stretching on Passive Knee-Extension Range of Motion

2005 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 95-107 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gregory S. Ford ◽  
Margaret A. Mazzone ◽  
Keith Taylor
Keyword(s):  
Range Of Motion ◽  
Outcome Measure ◽  
Knee Extension ◽  
Static Stretching ◽  
College Age ◽  
Type Design

Design:Pretest–posttest.Objective:To determine the effect of 4 durations of static hamstring stretching on knee-extension passive range of motion (KE-PROM).Context:Effects of longer (90 and 120 seconds) static hamstring stretching on PROM have not been established relative to more typically recommended 30- or 60-second durations.Subjects:35 healthy college-age subjects with >20° loss of KE-PROM.Outcome Measure:KE-PROM.Intervention:5-week program of single daily stretch for 30, 60, 90, or 120 seconds.Results:Static stretching was effective in increasing KE-PROM regardless of stretch duration (P< .0001). A significant improvement was identified in mean PROM for each stretching group, but no difference existed among the 4 stretch-duration groups. The control group’s mean PROM decreased (mean = -3.2°, SD = 1.9), whereas each stretching group increased PROM (means 1.9° to 3.6°).Conclusions:Five weeks of daily static hamstring stretching for 30, 60, 90, or 120 seconds increase KE-PROM. Similar benefits were achieved regardless of stretch duration, suggesting that clinicians need not perform static hamstring stretches of more than 30 seconds.

Assessing Cryotherapy and Moist Heat Pack Application With and Without the Use of Proprioceptive Neuromuscular Facilitation-Contract Relax Stretching

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-6
Author(s):  
Amy Mauro ◽  
Blaine C. Long
Keyword(s):  
Range Of Motion ◽  
Static Stretching ◽  
Detectable Change ◽  
Treatment Groups ◽  
Moist Heat ◽  
Proprioceptive Neuromuscular Facilitation ◽  
Hip Flexion ◽  
All Treatment

Cryotherapy or moist heat packs (MHP) are often used prior to static stretching to enhance range of motion (ROM). Their influence on ROM when applied prior to proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation-contract relax (PNF-CR) stretching is unknown. The purpose of this study was to determine if an ice bag or MHP influenced passive hip flexion ROM prior to PNF-CR stretching. When compared to the control, all treatment groups had a large effect. Participants receiving MHP PNF-CR, PNF-CR only, and ice bag PNF-CR met or exceeded our meaningful detectable change, thus demonstrating increased ROM. Those receiving an ice bag or MHP only did not demonstrate improvements and failed to present with ROM improvements.

scholarly journals The Effectiveness of PNF Versus Static Stretching on Increasing Hip-Flexion Range of Motion

2018 ◽  
Vol 27 (3) ◽  
pp. 289-294 ◽  
Author(s):  
Landon Lempke ◽  
Rebecca Wilkinson ◽  
Caitlin Murray ◽  
Justin Stanek
Keyword(s):  
Range Of Motion ◽  
Knee Extension ◽  
Static Stretching ◽  
Bottom Line ◽  
Physically Active ◽  
Active Population ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Methods And Techniques ◽  
Hip Flexion ◽  
Joint Range

Clinical Scenario:Stretching is applied for the purposes of injury prevention, increasing joint range of motion (ROM), and increasing muscle extensibility. Many researchers have investigated various methods and techniques to determine the most effective way to increase joint ROM and muscle extensibility. Despite the numerous studies conducted, controversy still remains within clinical practice and the literature regarding the best methods and techniques for stretching.Focused Clinical Question:Is proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation (PNF) stretching more effective than static stretching for increasing hamstring muscle extensibility through increased hip ROM or increased knee extension angle (KEA) in a physically active population?Summary of Key Findings:Five studies met the inclusion criteria and were included. All 5 studies were randomized control trials examining mobility of the hamstring group. The studies measured hamstring ROM in a variety of ways. Three studies measured active KEA, 1 study measured passive KEA, and 1 study measured hip ROM via the single-leg raise test. Of the 5 studies, 1 study found greater improvements using PNF over static stretching for increasing hip flexion, and the remaining 4 studies found no significant difference between PNF stretching and static stretching in increasing muscle extensibility, active KEA, or hip ROM.Clinical Bottom Line:PNF stretching was not demonstrated to be more effective at increasing hamstring extensibility compared to static stretching. The literature reviewed suggests both are effective methods for increasing hip-flexion ROM.Strength of Recommendation:Using level 2 evidence and higher, the results show both static and PNF stretching effectively increase ROM; however, one does not appear to be more effective than the other.

Effects of Static Stretching and Foam Rolling on Ankle Dorsiflexion Range of Motion

2019 ◽  
Vol 51 (8) ◽  
pp. 1752-1758 ◽  
Author(s):  
JASON CHADWICK SMITH ◽  
BRANDI R. WASHELL ◽  
MARY FRANCES AINI ◽  
SYDNEY BROWN ◽  
MACGREGOR C. HALL
Keyword(s):  
Range Of Motion ◽  
Ankle Dorsiflexion ◽  
Static Stretching ◽  
Foam Rolling

scholarly journals Acute Stretch Perception Alteration Contributes to the Success of the PNF “Contract-Relax” Stretch

2007 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. 85-92 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ulrike H. Mitchell ◽  
J. William Myrer ◽  
J. Ty Hopkins ◽  
Iain Hunter ◽  
J. Brent Feland ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Range Of Motion ◽  
Outcome Measure ◽  
Main Outcome Measure ◽  
Fourth Trial ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Proprioceptive Neuromuscular Facilitation ◽  
Average Stretch

Context:Some researchers have suggested that an alteration of stretch perception could be responsible for the success of the contract-relax (CR) stretch, a stretch technique derived from proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation (PNF).Objective:This study was conducted to determine if the alteration of the stretch perception is a possible explanation for the range of motion (ROM) gains of the CR stretch.Participants:Eighteen subjects performed two stretches in randomized order: the slow stretch and the CR stretch.Main Outcome Measure:The stretch intensity was controlled. The stretch force was measured and compared between the slow stretch and CR stretch.Results:There was a significant difference between the stretch force that could be applied in the PNF stretch (126.0 N) and the slow stretch (108.4 N); P = 0.00086. The average stretch tolerance progressively increased with successive trials from 120.6 N in the first trial to 132.4 N in the fourth trial.Conclusion:The alteration of stretch perception plays a role in the success of the CR form of PNF stretching. At least four repetitions of the CR stretch are recommended to get the greatest ROM gain.

scholarly journals Quadriceps foam rolling and rolling massage increases hip flexion and extension passive range-of-motion

2019 ◽  
Vol 23 (3) ◽  
pp. 575-580 ◽  
Author(s):  
Estêvão Rios Monteiro ◽  
Jefferson da Silva Novaes ◽  
Mark Tyler Cavanaugh ◽  
Barbara J. Hoogenboom ◽  
James Steele ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Range Of Motion ◽  
Foam Rolling ◽  
Hip Flexion ◽  
Flexion And Extension
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document