Total Training Volume and Muscle Soreness Parameters Performing Agonist or Antagonist Foam Rolling between Sets

Foam rolling (FR) has become very popular in recent years; however, the practice of FR between sets of resistance training (RT) for the lower limbs needs further examination. Therefore, the purpose of the present study was to examine the effect of FR for the agonists (quadriceps) and antagonists (ha...

Full description

Saved in:

Bibliographic Details
Published in:	Sports (Basel) Vol. 9; no. 5; p. 57
Main Authors:	Santana, Haroldo Gualter, Lara, Bruno, Canuto Almeida da Silva, Filipe, Medina Eiras, Pedro, Andrade Paz, Gabriel, Willardson, Jeffrey M, Miranda, Humberto
Format:	Journal Article
Language:	English
Published:	Switzerland MDPI AG 29-04-2021 MDPI
Subjects:	Agonists Data collection Exercise Fatigue foam rolling Load Pain Physical fitness Physical training Quadriceps muscle Questionnaires Range of motion resistance training Rest self-myofascial release Strength training self-myofascial release foam rolling resistance training
Online Access:	Get full text
Tags:	Add Tag No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!

Description
Summary:	Foam rolling (FR) has become very popular in recent years; however, the practice of FR between sets of resistance training (RT) for the lower limbs needs further examination. Therefore, the purpose of the present study was to examine the effect of FR for the agonists (quadriceps) and antagonists (hamstrings) between multiple sets of the leg extension on repetition maximum performance (RM), fatigue resistance index (FRI), and muscle soreness (MS). Quasi-experimental clinical trial. Twenty trained men participated in this study (30.35 ± 6.56 years, 1.77 ± 0.05 cm, 87.70 ± 7.6 kg) and attended seven sessions with 48 h between sessions, (one familiarization session; two 10-RM test and retest sessions; and four experimental sessions). The four experimental sessions were performed in random order and included: agonist foam rolling (AFR), antagonist foam rolling (ANTFR), agonist/antagonist foam rolling (A/ANTFR), and traditional control (TP, without foam rolling). All sessions consisted of three sets for maximal repetitions with a 10-RM load for the leg extension. In the AFR and ANTFR sessions, there was a 120 s rest interval between sets, during which FR was done for the agonists or antagonists, respectively. In the A/ANTFR protocol, there was a 120 s rest interval between sets, during which FR was done for the agonists and antagonists. In the traditional protocol (TP), there was a 120 s passive rest interval between sets. Regarding the total training volume (TTV), significant differences were noted between sessions (F = 11.014; = 0.0001). The AFR, ANTFR, and A/ANTFR sessions had significantly higher TTV versus the TP ( < 0.05). Regarding the FRI, significant differences were noted between sessions (F = 2917, = 0.042). A significantly higher fatigue index was shown for the ANTFR and AFR sessions versus the TP ( < 0.05). Regarding the total number of repetitions, significant differences were noted between sessions (F = 11.086, = 0.0001). The total number of repetitions was significantly higher in the A/ANTFR, ANTFR, and AFR versus the TP session ( < 0.05). MS was significantly lower in the A/ANTFR, ANTFR, and AFR sessions versus the TP session ( < 0.05). In conclusion, foam rolling between sets for the agonist or antagonist separately or in succession, resulted in greater neuromuscular performance and higher fatigue indices, as well as reducing the perception of acute muscle soreness.
Bibliography:	ObjectType-Article-1 SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1 ObjectType-Feature-2 content type line 23
ISSN:	2075-4663 2075-4663
DOI:	10.3390/sports9050057