↓ Skip to main content

The Effect of Foam Rolling for Three Consecutive Days on Muscular Efficiency and Range of Motion

Overview of attention for article published in Sports Medicine - Open, June 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#38 of 603)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (81st percentile)

Mentioned by

news
9 news outlets
twitter
19 X users
facebook
3 Facebook pages
video
1 YouTube creator

Citations

dimensions_citation
36 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
169 Mendeley
Title
The Effect of Foam Rolling for Three Consecutive Days on Muscular Efficiency and Range of Motion
Published in
Sports Medicine - Open, June 2018
DOI 10.1186/s40798-018-0141-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lewis J. Macgregor, Malcolm M. Fairweather, Ryan M. Bennett, Angus M. Hunter

Abstract

Foam rolling (FR) has been shown to alleviate some symptoms of exercise-induced muscle damage and has been suggested to increase range of motion (ROM) without negatively impacting strength. However, it is unclear what neuromuscular effects, if any, mediate these changes. In a randomized, crossover design, 16 healthy active males completed 2 min of rest or FR of the knee extensors on three consecutive days. Mechanical properties of vastus lateralis (VL) and rectus femoris (RF) were assessed via Tensiomyography. Knee extension maximal voluntary contraction (MVC) and knee flexion ROM were also assessed, and surface electromyography amplitude (RMS) was recorded during a submaximal isometric contraction (50% of MVC). Measures were performed before and after (0, 15, and 30 min) FR or rest. MVC was reduced on subsequent days in the rest condition compared to FR (p = 0.002, pη2 = 0.04); ROM was not different across time or condition (p = 0.193, pη2 = 0.01). Stiffness characteristics of the VL were different on the third day of FR (p = 0.002, pη2 = 0.03). RMS was statistically reduced 0, 15, and 30 min after FR compared to rest (p = 0.006, pη2 = 0.03; p = 0.003, pη2 = 0.04; p = 0.002, pη2 = 0.04). Following FR, MVC was elevated compared to rest and RMS was transiently reduced during a submaximal task. Excitation efficiency of the involved muscles may have been enhanced by FR, which protected against the decline in MVC which was observed with rest.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 19 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 169 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 169 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 32 19%
Student > Master 22 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 14 8%
Researcher 11 7%
Student > Postgraduate 10 6%
Other 30 18%
Unknown 50 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Sports and Recreations 58 34%
Medicine and Dentistry 22 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 2%
Other 14 8%
Unknown 54 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 94. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 28 March 2022.
All research outputs
#452,545
of 25,547,904 outputs
Outputs from Sports Medicine - Open
#38
of 603 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#9,877
of 342,577 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Sports Medicine - Open
#4
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,547,904 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 603 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 26.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 342,577 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.