Publications
A Single Bout of Foam Rolling After Nordic Hamstring Exercise Improves Flexibility but Has No Effect on Muscle Stiffness or Functional Muscle Parameters
Authors: Coskun Rodoplu 1, 2, 3, Christian Burger 3, Josef Fischer 3, Josefina Manieu Seguel 3, Ramiz Arabaci 1, Andreas Konrad 3
Affiliations:
- Department of Physical Education and Sports Teaching, Bursa Uludag University, Bursa 16059, Turkey
- Department of Common Courses, Bursa Technical University, Bursa 16310, Turkey
- Institute of Human Movement Science, Sport and Health, Graz University, 8010 Graz, Austria
Journal: Medicina - August 2025, Volume 61, Issue 8, Article no. 1486 (DOI: 10.3390/medicina61081486)
-
Field & Applications:
- Sport
- Treatment evaluation
- Muscle development / Performance
- Warm-up / Recovery
- Injury prevention
Background and Objectives: The Nordic hamstring exercise (NHE) effectively strengthens the hamstrings, reduces the risk of hamstring strain, and induces fatigue in the muscles; thus, post-NHE recovery strategies should be optimized. Foam rolling (FR) is a widely used method, with the belief that it can speed up recovery. Thus, this study investigated the acute and 48-h effects of FR following the NHE on muscle stiffness, pain pressure threshold (PPT), flexibility, countermovement jump (CmJ) height, and maximal voluntary isometric contraction (MVIC).
Materials and Methods: Thirty-two active males were randomly assigned to either an FR group (n = 16) or a passive recovery (PR, n = 16) group. Measurements were taken at three time points: pre-test, post-test_0h, and post-test_48h. Participants performed the NHE (3 sets × 10 reps) before the recovery interventions. Variables assessed included muscle stiffness (MyotonPRO), flexibility (sit and reach), PPT (algometer), jump performance (force platform), and MVIC peak torque (dynamometer).
Results: FR significantly improved acute flexibility (12.7%, p < 0.001) following the NHE and prevented flexibility loss at 48 h, compared to the PR group. However, FR showed no significant advantages over PR in terms of muscle stiffness, PPT, CmJ, or MVIC, both acutely and at 48 h (p > 0.05).
Conclusions: FR is an effective acute recovery strategy for improving flexibility after the NHE but offers limited effects for muscle stiffness, PPT, and other functional muscle parameters, both acutely and at 48 h. Further research should explore the long-term effects and efficacy of FR across diverse populations and recovery scenarios.
Keywords: eccentric exercise, range of motion, recovery, muscle performance
The hypotheses of this study were partially supported. According to the results of the study, FR after the NHE had positive acute effects on flexibility, compared to PR, as well as a favorable effect after 48 h; however, its effects on PPT, muscle stiffness, CmJ height, and MVIC peak torque were limited both acutely and after 48 h. In conclusion, FR may serve as a practical and time-efficient strategy to enhance flexibility following strenuous eccentric exercise, though its effects on pain sensitivity, muscle stiffness, and strength recovery remain limited. Nevertheless, factors such as application protocols and individual differences can play a critical role in its effectiveness.