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

Por favor, use este identificador para citar o enlazar este ítem: http://hdl.handle.net/10045/113823
Información del item - Informació de l'item - Item information
Título: Acute Comparative Effect of Foam Rolling and Static Stretching on Range of Motion in Rowers
Autor/es: Penichet-Tomás, Alfonso | Pueo, Basilio | Abad-Lopez, Marta | Jimenez-Olmedo, Jose Manuel
Grupo/s de investigación o GITE: Research in Physical Education, Fitness and Performance (RIPEFAP)
Centro, Departamento o Servicio: Universidad de Alicante. Departamento de Didáctica General y Didácticas Específicas
Palabras clave: Traditional rowing | Flexibility | Sports | Performance
Área/s de conocimiento: Educación Física y Deportiva
Fecha de publicación: 24-mar-2021
Editor: MDPI
Cita bibliográfica: Penichet-Tomas A, Pueo B, Abad-Lopez M, Jimenez-Olmedo JM. Acute Comparative Effect of Foam Rolling and Static Stretching on Range of Motion in Rowers. Sustainability. 2021; 13(7):3631. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13073631
Resumen: 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.
URI: http://hdl.handle.net/10045/113823
ISSN: 2071-1050
DOI: 10.3390/su13073631
Idioma: eng
Tipo: info:eu-repo/semantics/article
Derechos: © 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Revisión científica: si
Versión del editor: https://doi.org/10.3390/su13073631
Aparece en las colecciones:INV - SCAPE - Artículos de Revistas
INV - HEALTH-TECH - Artículos de Revistas

Archivos en este ítem:
Archivos en este ítem:
Archivo Descripción TamañoFormato 
ThumbnailPenichet-Tomas_etal_2021_Sustainability.pdf2,06 MBAdobe PDFAbrir Vista previa


Este ítem está licenciado bajo Licencia Creative Commons Creative Commons