Foam rolling and stretching do not provide superior acute flexibility and stiffness improvements compared to any other warm-up intervention: A systematic review with meta-analysis

Abstract

Background: Acute improvement in range of motion (ROM) is a widely reported effect of stretching and foam rolling, which is commonly explained by changes in pain threshold and/or musculotendinous stiffness. Interestingly, these effects were also reported in response to various other active and passive interventions that induce responses such as enhanced muscle temperature. Therefore, we hypothesized that acute ROM enhancements could be induced by a wide variety of interventions other than stretching or foam rolling that promote an increase in muscle temperature. Methods: After a systematic search in PubMed, Web of Science, and SPORTDiscus databases, 38 studies comparing the effects of stretching and foam rolling with several other interventions on ROM and passive properties were included. These studies had 1134 participants in total, and the data analysis resulted in 140 effect sizes (ESs). ES calculations were performed using robust variance estimation model with R-package. Results: Study quality of the included studies was classified as fair (PEDro score = 4.58) with low to moderate certainty of evidence. Results showed no significant differences in ROM (ES = 0.01, p = 0.88), stiffness (ES = 0.09, p = 0.67), or passive peak torque (ES = –0.30, p = 0.14) between stretching or foam rolling and the other identified activities. Funnel plots revealed no publication bias. Conclusion: Based on current literature, our results challenge the established view on stretching and foam rolling as a recommended component of warm-up programs. The lack of significant difference between interventions suggests there is no need to emphasize stretching or foam rolling to induce acute ROM, passive peak torque increases, or stiffness reductions.

Keywords

• Range of motion
• Passive properties
• Muscle–tendon unit
• Muscle tissue