1. NUMBER 1 OF 1
AUTHOR QUERIES
DATE 3/5/2015
JOB NAME JSCR
ARTICLE JSCR-08-4963
QUERIES FOR AUTHORS Bushell et al
THIS QUERY FORM MUST BE RETURNED WITH ALL PROOFS FOR CORRECTIONS
AU1) Please note that any words included in title should not be allowed in key words section as per style. Hence the
keywords “foam rolling, hip extension, and functional lunge” have been deleted. Please check and reword those
keywords.
AU2) Please check the hierarchy of heading levels.
AU3) Please provide the age ranges for all subjects mentioned in the Subjects section if you have not already. If any
subjects were ,18 years of age, please confirm that parental consent was obtained. Please also confirm, if you have
not already, that informed consent documents were signed for all subjects.
AU4) Please provide city name for “Dartfish software program” in the sentence “The video of each subjects.”
AU5) There was no in-text citation for Figure 2. Please check the suggested in-text citation for Figure 2 and correct the
location if necessary.
AU6) Please provide publisher name and location for reference 1.
AU7) Please provide journal title for references other than 1 and 11.
AU8) Please provide volume number and journal title for reference 8.
AU9) Please provide city name for reference 11.

2. CLINICAL RELEVANCE OF FOAM ROLLING ON HIP
EXTENSION ANGLE IN A FUNCTIONAL LUNGE POSITION
JENNIFER E. BUSHELL, SIERRA M. DAWSON, AND MARGARET M. WEBSTER
Department of Human Physiology, University of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon
ABSTRACT
Bushell, JE, Dawson, SM, and Webster, MM. Clinical rele-
vance of foam rolling on hip extension angle in a functional
lunge position. J Strength Cond Res XX(X): 000–000,
2015—The objective of this study was to examine the duration
of effectiveness of foam rolling on hip extension angles in
a dynamic lunge position. Thirty-one subjects were assigned
to control (n = 15) or intervention (n = 16) group. All the
subjects followed the same testing timeline; 3 testing ses-
sions, with 2 lunges in each session. The intervention group
performed foam rolling between each lunge in sessions 1
and 2, and 5 times in 7 days between sessions 1 and 2. They
did not foam roll during the week between sessions 2 and 3
or in session 3. The control group did not foam roll at all. Hip
extension angles were recorded using Dartfish software and
subjects filled out a global perceived effect scale rating the
feeling of the second lunge and the intervention for each
session. A 6 3 2 mixed-effects analysis of variance was run
with post hoc t-tests revealing significant gains in hip exten-
sion within session 2 for the intervention group (p # 0.05).
Hip extension angles returned to baseline values after sub-
ject’s ceased foam rolling for 1 week. Global perceived effect
scores were higher for the intervention group and 29 of 32
words of descriptive feedback included positive words
regarding foam rolling. We concluded that consistent foam
rolling produced increases in hip extension during a dynamic
lunge, but these effects are not seen within the first exposure.
Foam rolling received positive reception and perceived im-
provements in hip extension. The findings indicate that
repeated foam rolling is beneficial, both objectively and sub-
jectively, for increasing range of motion immediately preced-
ing a dynamic activity.
KEY WORDS foam rolling, myofascial release, hip extension,
functional lungeAU1
INTRODUCTION
F
ascia is AU2a constituent of connective tissue (12) and
surrounds all organs and body structures. Myofas-
cia directly envelops and connects muscles and
forms chains, which are connected from the cra-
nium through the toes (11). Muscle imbalances or restrictions
are common issues afflicting the musculoskeletal system and
can lead to injury. Altered muscle function, imbalance, or
restriction can arise when a muscle undergoes a change in
its normal mechanics that can occur from tightness, weakness,
injury, or overstress. These alterations cause shifts in the rela-
tionships between muscles because of a change in the neural
firing. The ensuing imbalances lead to sheer stress on joints
through muscle tone or atrophy and resultant pain to the
muscle. When a muscle undergoes increased stress, the tissue
suffers from breakdown and fatigue, which affects the myo-
fascia locally and globally across the entire fascial chain (6).
One of the fascial chains that form a continuous meridian
along the frontal plane of the body is the “superficial front
line,” which has fascial connections between the scalp fascia,
sternocleidomastoid, rectus abdominus, rectus femoris/
quadriceps, subpatellar tendon, tibialis anterior, and short
and long toe extensors. Restrictions in the superficial front
line are seen with forward head posture, anterior pelvic shift
and tilt, knee hyperextension, breathing restrictions in the
anterior ribs, and ankle plantar flexion limitation (11). De-
creases in hip extension and backwards bending would be
dysfunctional manifestations of these restrictions.
When fascia is negatively affected, it results in compen-
satory movement patterns, and its normal gel-like property
hardens through the formation of fascial cross-links and scar
tissue (4,6,11). These formations inhibit proper biomechan-
ics and reduce joint range of motion, causing pain, restricting
muscle length, causing neuromuscular hypertonicity,
decreased strength and endurance, and decreased motor
coordination (6). Because myofascia is relatively superficial,
it can be influenced through foam rolling (self-myofascial
release), which helps to reduce these restrictions by remobi-
lizing the tissue through friction and mechanical stress, help-
ing to return the fascia into its original gel-like state (3).
Foam rolling along part of the superficial front line can
improve restrictions and range of motion.
Foam rolling may be a more effective modality for
myofascial release over stretching and massage therapy
Address correspondence to Sierra M. Dawson, sdawson@uoregon.edu.
00(00)/1–7
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Ó 2015 National Strength and Conditioning Association
VOLUME 00 | NUMBER 00 | MONTH 2015 | 1

3. because of its ability to increase range of motion without
increasing potential for injury (3,6,13). Stretching places ten-
sion and pressure on the origin and insertion of a muscle,
which can cause damage to muscles by disrupting alignment
of filaments or cross bridges, and tearing of sarcomeres (6,8).
When there is damage to muscle fibers, neuromuscular per-
formance is hindered and the ability for the muscle to pro-
duce force is decreased (1). Similarly, massage can create
increases in range of motion, but subsequent detriments in
muscle electromyography, strength, and motor neuron excit-
ability have been reported (6,13). Foam rolling is believed to
enhance joint range of motion without these neuromuscular
decrements as well as correct muscular imbalances and
decrease muscle tone and spasm, alleviating muscle soreness
and joint stress and thus promoting optimal skeletal function
and neuromuscular efficiency (3,4,6). There is evidence for
foam rolling increasing hip extension as an isolated move-
ment for a short period (6). What has yet to be investigated
is if foam rolling the anterior thigh will still cause improve-
ments in hip extension when stretch is placed on the rest of
the frontal plane or if the range of motion gained transfers to
dynamic movement.
Increases or decreases in range of motion can be tested
passively or in a functional dynamic movement. However,
changes in passive motion do not necessarily transfer to
improvements in functional range of motion. This is likely
contributable to multiple motor patterns and muscle groups
being used in a dynamic movement. The body develops
patterns of movements throughout one’s life. These patterns
develop as the most energy efficient way for that individual
to perform a movement (10). Researchers investigating
a 6-week stretching, myofascial release, and hip/spine dis-
sociation exercise intervention report improvements in hip
extension only in the position they stretched in, with no
transfer to dynamic activities such as lunging, walking,
and running (8,10).
Individuals of all levels of sport and injury use foam
rolling; foam rollers are readily available to the general public
and athletes of all levels. Many clinicians and health care
professionals prescribe foam rolling for their patients for any
number of muscle-related injuries, general soreness, recov-
ery, or prevention. However, there is a lack of consistency
and evidence-based practice behind the reasoning people are
choosing to foam roll (FR).
It is important to understand if foam rolling has a direct
effect on the area that is treated and if so, how long the
effects of foam rolling can be maintained by the body.
Humans move dynamically on a daily basis, parameters for
improving their function are important to determine appro-
priate return to activity guidelines or the time of day to
implement rehabilitation interventions. Because fascia is
a chain, and overlies muscles that work in relationships,
we were interested in determining whether foam rolling the
anterior thigh, a larger area of the superficial front line would
cause improvements in hip mobility when the rest of the
chain was put on stretch and if these gains in hip extension
achieved through foam rolling would transfer to a functional
movement pattern such as the lunge. To the best of our
knowledge, there are no studies exploring the effects of foam
rolling on increasing extensibility in a dynamic position, and
none that examine whether a prolonged FR intervention will
allow for greater gains in hip extension or if improvements
will be maintained 1-week postintervention. With the
popularity of foam rolling and its use as a rehabilitation
intervention patient-based outcomes and intervention pa-
rameters are important to establish for both clinicians and
individuals self-use.
The purpose of this study was to determine whether foam
rolling the anterior thigh can increase the range of motion in
hip extension in a dynamic lunge position and if these
changes will remain 1-week postintervention.
Hypotheses
The intervention (FR) group will have increased hip
extension, compared with the control group, immedi-
ately after 1 session of foam rolling, as well as after 1
week of foam rolling, but will return to prestudy base-
line values after ceasing foam rolling for 1 week.
The intervention group will report a higher score on the
global perceived effect (GPE) scale immediately after 1
session of foam rolling, and after 1 week of foam rolling,
compared with the control group.
METHODS
Experimental Approach to the Problem
The study design used foam rolling and the concept of fascia
as a continuous chain in the superficial front line ( F1Figure 1) to
determine whether foam rolling the anterior portion of the
thigh caused increases in hip extension in an active movement
such as the lunge (Figure 1) (11). The lunge position was
chosen as it is a functional position for physical activity com-
pared with passively testing a single joint angle in a seated or
lying position. To determine whether the previously reported
gains in hip extension from foam rolling (6,8) transferred to
a dynamic activity, we tracked hip extension angle while sub-
jects performed a lunge. Subjects performed 2 lunges during 3
sessions 1 week apart to test if foam rolling produces imme-
diate and lasting effects on hip extension angle. To do this, we
incorporated 2 independent variables. The first was a subject
group, a between-subjects qualitative variable with 2 levels;
control and intervention (FR). We had a control group to
ensure that any increases in hip extension were due to foam
rolling and not due to a warm-up effect from repeated lunging
alone. The second independent variable was the testing ses-
sion, a within-subjects measure with 6 levels; a pre- and post-
measurement at each of the 3 sessions. The first quantitative
dependent variable was hip extension angle. The final depen-
dent variable was the GPE score, which was incorporated to
better understand how the subjects felt about their treatment.
Foam Rolling Effects on a Functional Lunge
2 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
the TM

4. Subjects
Thirty-three subjects were recruited from a University
campus through e-mail and word of mouth. Two subjects
did not complete the study, 1 due to injury and the other due
to schedule conflicts, resulting in a total of 31 participants
completing the studAU3 y. Nineteen men and 12 women partici-
pated with a mean age of 21.35 6 2.44 years, a mean weight
of 74.96 6 10.21 kg for men and 62.79 6 7.72 kg for women,
and a mean height of 178.36 6 6.35 cm for men and 165.93 6
7.18 cm for women. All subjects reported a minimum of 1.5
hours of physical activity per week (a mean of 9.02 6 5.79
hours) and had not performed foam rolling within the last 4
months. Subject backgrounds were 2 Nordic skiers, 15
triathletes, 9 recreational athletes, 4 elite tennis players,
and 1 swimmer with respective means of 10.75, 9.5, 3.11,
20, and 6 hours of physical activity a week. Subjects training
backgrounds ranged from varsity competitive athlete with
10–21 hours of training a week to recreational athletes aver-
aging 3 hours of intense physical activity a week. Subjects
were tested in either November or January and assigned to
the control (n = 15) or the intervention/FR (n = 16) groups.
No subject had any current injury that affected their ability
to lunge or FR. Subjects were asked to indicate which leg
they would kick a ball with, and this leg became the tested
extremity with that hip being extended during the lunge.
Twenty-nine of the subjects tested their right hip, and 2
tested the left. All subjects followed the same testing pro-
tocol and written informed consent was obtained from the
subject. All subjects were tested on a hard tile surface in the
same location. There was no restriction on participants’
nutrition, hydration or workout type, time of day, intensity,
length or frequency, aside from the imposed minimums to be
a subject in the study. The University’s Institutional Review
Board approved this study.
Procedures
Independent Variables. Testing Session. Subjects were
tested over the course of 3 weeks, with each session
occurring exactly 1 week from their previous session at the
same time and same location at the University of Oregon.
Sessions were labeled sequentially with session 1 being the
first session, session 2 occurred the next week, and session 3
the following week from session 2. At the start of each
testing session, subjects filled out a questionnaire including
demographic information, the number of hours of physical
activity performed that week, and any new or current
injuries. In session 2, the intervention group also recorded
their self-reported minutes and days they had foam rolled
that week. Markers were placed on anatomical landmarks on
the dominant side of the body on the acromion process,
greater trochanter, lateral femoral condyle, and lateral
malleolus. In addition, markers were added to the contra-
lateral medial femoral condyle and medial malleolus. Sub-
jects were shown how to perform the extended lunge and
allowed to practice it once (Figure 1) at the start of each
session before beginning the protocol.
All subjects placed their nondominant foot at a designated
marking and were instructed to keep that knee bent to 908
while keeping their tested extremity as straight as possible
behind them, with the heel on the ground. Once in this
position they were asked to lean back as far as possible with
their arms over their head, not changing their leg positions,
and then finally to drop the arm of the same side as their
tested leg down to their side. All subjects performed 2 lunges
during each session.
Subject Groups. Intervention Group—Foam
Roller and Foam Rolling Technique. Intervention
subjects foam rolled on a 12 3 6 inch foam roller composed
of expanded polyethylene high-density foam. This type of
foam roller was chosen because of its effectiveness examined
in previous literature (3,6) and its accessibility to subjects. We
also made several foam rollers of this type available to our
participants 20 hours each day in an accessible locker in the
lobby of the University of Oregon Student Recreation
Center.
For the myofascial foam rolling technique, the interven-
tion subjects were instructed to begin in a plank position and
place the foam roller on their anterior thigh of the dominant
(tested) leg at the most proximal part of the quadriceps
muscle, just inferior to the anterior superior iliac spine. They
then walked themselves forward using their hands or
forearms so the foam roller rolled down the length of the
quadriceps. They were instructed to stop rolling forwards
when the foam roller reached the top of their knee and to
reverse the direction so the foam roller returned to the start
Figure 1. Example of the lunge position.
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
the TM
| www.nsca.com
VOLUME 00 | NUMBER 00 | MONTH 2015 | 3

5. position. They were instructed to repeat this motion for
three 1-minute bouts with 30 seconds of rest between
each minute. This timing was chosen based on previous
studies, which demonstrated that a continual pressure for
60–90 seconds was optimal for myofascial release (6–8). Sub-
jects were allowed to place their nontesting extremity on top
of the extremity they were foam rolling or, if the pressure
was too great, they were able to place the nontesting extrem-
ity on the ground to relieve some of the weight on the foam
roller. Subjects then immediately performed their second
lunge. The intervention group performed foam rolling
between the lunges of sessions 1 and 2 and for 5 separate
unsupervised sessions occurring on different days of this
same 3 3 1 minute bout of rolling in the week between
sessions 1 and 2.
The control group did not perform any foam rolling and
was instructed to sit quietly for 3 minutes between their 2
lunges. Both groups were told to keep their weekly activity
consistent with before beginning the study, with the added
excepting, the intervention group added foam rolling into
their weekly routine.
Measurements. Video.Subjects were video recorded
using a standard Sony handycam mounted on a tripod at 12
feet from the participant. This distance was kept consistent
at each session and enabled the testers to view the subject’s
entire body. The background was a plain white wall with no
markings. Subjects were given verbal feedback and encour-
agement during each lunge to help ensure proper
positioning.
The video of each subjects lunge was transferred to the
Dartfish software program (GA, USAU4 A). On Dartfish, the
same tester measured hip extension angle, relative to
the nondominant thigh by drawing vectors onto the video.
The video was then played, and hip extension angle was
tracked by this drawn angle.
At the start of each lunge, the subjects lined up the distal
end of their first hallux of their forward, nontested foot to
a line that was taped at 80 cm from a reference point. This
was done to ensure accuracy and consistency of foot spread
within and between subjects and sessions. We also did this
for any calibration in measurements that Dartfish software
may have required, such as foot spread.
Dependent Variables. Hip Extension Angle. The
vectors were drawn beginning at the greater trochanter of
the dominant leg to the lateral femoral condyle of the same
leg and the contralateral medial femoral condyle. We
recorded the largest angle indicating the deepest part of
the lunge was achieved.
Global Perceived Effect Scale. After each session, all
subjects filled out 2 GPE scales by circling a number on the
scale ranging from 25 to +5: 25 equivocated to much worse,
0 was no change, and +5 indicated much improvement.
Kamper et al. (5) reported excellent test-retest reliability and
reliable assessments of perceived and actual changes in people
with musculoskeletal disorders using this tool. Subjects circled
2 scales, 1 to report how they felt performing their second
lunge compared with the first lunge of the current session and
a second to indicate how they felt foam rolling (intervention
group) or resting (control group). Subjects were unaware as to
their recorded values of hip extension in each lunge; this
ensured no bias toward their ratings of foam rolling. During
session 3, the second GPE scale question was changed to ask
how the intervention group felt resting this week compared
with the week they performed foam rolling. Finally, subjects
also wrote down 2 words to describe how their tested extrem-
ity felt after the testing session. Before analysis, these words
were grouped into 3 categories; positive, no change, or
negative.
During the week between sessions 1 and 2, the interven-
tion group repeated the foam rolling treatment 5 separate
times for 3 minutes with 30-second rest between
each minute of treatment. Foam rollers were made available
to the subjects in the student recreation center, or they could
use their own uniform polystyrene roller. The control group
was asked not to alter their normal physical routines. After
session 2, the intervention group was asked to stop using
a foam roller for the week between sessions 2 and 3 but
continue with their normal physical activity routine. When
subjects returned for session 3, the protocol remained the
same as the previous 2 testing sessions, but neither group
performed foam rolling between their 2 extended lunge
positions.
Statistical Analyses
Hip extension data were analyzed using a mixed-effects
analysis of variance (ANOVA) with 2 levels of between-
subject and 6 levels of within-subject variables. Post hoc
paired samples t-tests were then run, when appropriate,
based on results of the ANOVA. A univariate ANOVA was
run to determine effect size and test-retest reliability. Signif-
icance level was chosen at a = 0.05.
RESULTS
Hip Extension
We hypothesized that the intervention group would have
increased hip extension, compared with the control group,
immediately after 1 session of foam rolling and after 1 week
of foam rolling. A mixed-effect ANOVA revealed that there
were no significant increases in hip extension angle between
the control group and intervention group immediately or
across time for all 6 lunges (f , 1, p . 0.05). In contrast,
within-group differences were identified (f = 6.08, p = 0.00)
within the intervention group. Post hoc t-tests determined
that there were significant increases in hip extension within
session 2 (p # 0.05; effect size: r = 20.11) for the interven-
tion group. After 1 week of foam rolling, we expected in-
creases in hip extension angle to be present at the start of
session 2. Instead, only significant increases in hip extension
Foam Rolling Effects on a Functional Lunge
4 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
the TM

6. angle occurred within session 2. Both pre- and postlunge
mean hip extension angles in session 3 did not differ signif-
icantly from session 1 baseline lunge (p . 0.05), supporting
our hypothesis that the effects of foam rolling on the body
are not maintained long term after the intervention stops
(F2 Figure 2)AU5 .
Globalized Perceived Effect Scores
We added all numbers circled on the GPE scale for each
question at each session to create a total score for the
intervention and control groups. More positive feelings were
expressed toward foam rolling compared with resting in
session 1 (intervention = +31, control = +17) (p = 0.08, 95%
confidence interval [CI]: 21.87 to 0.13, r = 0.98). After 1 week
of intervention, the positive feelings were significantly greater
than the control group (intervention = +48, control = +15;
F3Figure 3A) (p = 0.00, 95% CI: 21.14 to 24.97, r = 0.10). Score
improvements performing the postlunge are reported during
session 2 by the intervention group (intervention = +34, con-
trol = +18; Figure 3B), although they do not demonstrate
significance (p = 0.20, r = 0.98). After ceasing foam rolling
for the second week, the intervention group reported feeling
significantly worse while performing a lunge compared with
the week they were allowed to FR, +5 and +48, respectively
(p = 0.00, 95% CI: 24.11 to 21.26, r = 20.10). The control
group feelings remained relatively similar to the previous ses-
sions, +11 and +15, respectively. These reports partially sup-
port our hypothesis; higher scores are achieved on the GPE
scale with the addition of foam rolling, although a significant
increase in scores only occurred after a week of intervention.
DISCUSSION
Foam rolling is often used in sport and recreation settings as
an alternative to stretching or massage to achieve improved
recovery from workouts, increases in range of motion, and as
a warm-up for muscles and fascia. It was developed as a way
to allow the patient to provide self-release and mobilization
of tissue. Past research indicates that preactivity static
stretching and massage are potentially detrimental by
causing over stretch to muscle tendons or dampening motor
neuron excitability (1,3,6,13). Foam rolling is thought to pro-
duce an increase in range of motion and warm-up the tissues
without the subsequent decrements found in stretching and
massage (6,7). Range of motion improvements from a 6-week
intervention of stretching and hip/spine dissociation exer-
cises did not transfer to functional movements such as ellip-
tical training, twist and reach, standing active hip extension,
and lunging (10). Therefore, we developed this study to
examine foam rolling used as a warm-up before activity to
aid in increasing range of motion in the dynamic movement
of a lunge. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first peer-
reviewed study to investigate whether any increases in range
of motion caused by foam rolling will transfer to functional
movement. Within the intervention group who foam rolled,
significant increases in hip extension angle were gained in
the postlunge compared with the prelunge of session 2 after
1 week of FR intervention. Surprisingly, the prelunge of
session 2 did not have significantly larger hip extension an-
gles than session 1, despite foam rolling 5 times that week.
We expected increases in hip extension angles after 1 week
of foam rolling in the prelunge of session 2. Instead, no
significant change in mean hip extension angle occurred
Figure 3. Global perceived effect scores on how subjects feel after
foam rolling or resting (A) and on performing the postlunge compared
with the prelunge (B). GPE scale is a range from 25 to +5. GPE score
was calculated by adding the reported scores by a group, within
a session.
Figure 2. Mean amount of hip extension angle of pre- and postlunge in
each session within each subject group.
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
the TM
| www.nsca.com
VOLUME 00 | NUMBER 00 | MONTH 2015 | 5

7. compared with the respective lunges in session 1. However,
noting the significant gain in hip extension in the interven-
tion group from prelunge to postlunge in the second session
and comparing them to the results reported by Macdonald
et al. (6) of immediate gains in knee flexion angle post foam
rolling, it is reasonable to conclude that the effects of foam
rolling are immediate, even in a dynamic movement, but do
not remain for longer bouts of time. This is supported by
a previous study printed in the Journal of Undergraduate
Research investigating foam rolling across multiple weeks.
They report no gains in hip flexion range of motion from
foam rolling the hamstrings for 8 weeks (9), indicating that
effects of foam rolling are neither cumulative nor last over
longer periods of time.
Therefore, the first hypothesis that the intervention group
would have larger gains in hip extension compared with the
control group immediately and after 1 week of foam rolling
can be partially rejected as significant gains in hip extension
were shown within the intervention group but not between
groups. Although these results are not significant, the
intervention group gained a mean of 3.708 in hip extension
compared with 0.348 in the control group. One reason why
no statistical difference existed between groups could be the
magnitude of individual variability. The variance in each
group is larger than their gains in hip extension, thus reduc-
ing the statistical likelihood of identifying differences
between groups. Reasoning for the intervention subjects
not achieving significant gains in hip extension after foam
rolling in session 1 compared with session 2 can be attrib-
uted to the initial exposure of foam rolling. Many of our
subjects had never foam rolled before and the others had
been more than 4 months without exposure. This first expe-
rience can be uncomfortable and even painful, as the pres-
sure exerted by the foam roller on the anterior thigh is 33.4
kPa (3). The intervention group had 8 subjects who use
negative words such as “sore” to describe how they felt after
foam rolling in the first session, which reduced to only 3
subjects in the second session. Feelings of soreness and expo-
sure to a new stress on the body can affect the feeling of
extensibility while performing the postlunge. Larger gains
seen within the intervention group in the second session
could be credited to repeated exposure to the stimulus,
which will dampen the subjects’ sensitivity to it. Therefore,
recurrent bouts of rolling throughout the week may have
allowed individuals to accommodate to the pressure of the
roller by dulling the sensation of the stretch end point
through pressure on cutaneous receptors (6). This allows
for improved performance in the postlunge when the sub-
jects returned for the second session.
Our hypothesis that hip extension values in the interven-
tion group will return to prestudy baseline values after
ceasing foam rolling for 1 week can be accepted as there is
no significant change between session 3 and session 1
prelunge in the intervention group (p . 0.05). The control
groups mean hip extension values never differed more than
s = 1.658 across all session (p . 0.05). These values indicate
that any increases in hip extension angle are solely due to
foam rolling and not due to repeated lunging.
Subjects GPE scores support part of our hypothesis that
the intervention group will report higher scores compared
with the control group; however, the scores were only
significantly higher in the second session (p = 0.00) indicat-
ing that they felt much better after repeated exposure to
foam rolling. This lends effectiveness to foam rolling, despite
no significance in the objective measures between groups;
significance in subjective measures supports the use of foam
rolling as there is a large aspect of mental preparedness in
sport and physical activity. If a patient perceives a treatment
as improving their physical movement or range of motion, it
is considered an effective treatment.
The words subjects wrote down during each session
further support the subjective positivity toward foam rolling
as a warm-up tool. Of the 32 words reported by the
intervention group, 29 reflect positive feelings toward
subjects foam rolling experience, compared with only 12
positive words reported by the same subjects once they
ceased foam rolling for the third session. Subjects used words
such as “stretched,” “relaxed,” and “long” to describe foam
rolling, and “stiff” or “sore” to describe the week without
foam rolling.
Future studies could further investigate the pre- vs.
postactivity effectiveness. It is important to keep in mind
foam rolling likely has its largest gains in softer myofascial
structures, because the amount of force needed to produce
a 1% change in dense fascia is far outside the human
physiological range (2). Therefore, actual tissue deformation
would be painful and unachievable by foam rolling alone.
Softer tissues could be deformed with forces at the upper
bounds of the physiological limits (2).
Reasoning for lack of significance between subject groups
can be attributed to testing hip extension angles in a dynamic
position as opposed to passive. Moreside et al. (10) discov-
ered that subjects did not use passive gains in hip extension
when tested performing a lunge and instead tried to gain the
motion with other body segments such as lumbar extension.
This suggests that preexisting motor patterns seem to dom-
inate over gains in range of motion achieved in other ways.
A limitation to our study is we did not put restrictions on
how subjects moved to achieve the lunge; subjects were in
a free-standing dynamic position guided only with verbal
cues. They may have been more focused on these cues than
on hip extension, and their pre-engrained motor patterns
could have prevented increases in hip extension. Significant
gains in knee range of motion reported in previous studies
may be more achievable because they used a strict, hip fixed,
kneeling position in a modified lunge (6,7), so there was little
room for subjects’ prelearned movement pattern to be used.
Another limitation is that it is possible that there was bias
toward foam rolling being effective, which may have
influenced the positivity toward foam rolling. Because foam
Foam Rolling Effects on a Functional Lunge
6 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
the TM

8. rollers are present in many gyms and athletic training rooms,
subjects may have preconceived notions of foam rolling
being beneficial. Global perceived effect scores may permit
excessive between test variability as shown by the correla-
tion coefficient r = 0.10. Other limitations lie in the type of
foam roller used, previous peer-reviewed literature used
polyvinyl chloride pipe with neoprene surrounding it,
whereas our subjects rolled on polystyrene foam rollers, cho-
sen for accessibility and cost. We recognize that greater ef-
fects may have been demonstrated with a harder foam roller
because of the pressure and force it exerts on soft tissue (3).
Another large limitation exists in not controlling subjects’
physical activity during the testing days. Therefore, subjects
could have been sedentary all day or have come from a work-
out session of any varying type of activity. Because of
dynamic movement and nonsimilar workout habits, large
SDs and lack of significance from control preclude statistical
and biological significance. Although we had a larger subject
pool than previous FR studies, testing a dynamic movement
requires a larger subject number to increase effect size and
statistical power, which will account for individual variability
with movement within a session and across multiple days.
PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS
The increases in hip extension observed in a lunge imme-
diately after foam rolling and after repeated exposure
support the use of foam rolling as a prephysical activity
and warm-up modality. Regardless of the degree or range of
motion an individual may achieve, subjective positivity
reported with foam rolling give evidence to support imple-
menting foam rolling to achieve increases in hip extension
range of motion before physical activity. It is self-
administered and can be modulated by the individual with
little instruction from a therapist and can be performed at the
site of physical activity on a daily basis, allowing therapists
more hands on time with the athlete. This gives the patient
or athlete a sense of control over their warm-up or
treatment.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The purchase of the 4 foam rollers for use by our subjects
was provided by the Department of Human Physiology at
the University of Oregon. No other funding was required for
this study. The authors thank Sierra Dawson, manuscript
supervisor, and mentor for helping the research question
take shape into a feasible study, Margaret Webster, research
assistant, who helped to carry out all subject testing and
computing of data, and Jake Mahon who provided his
knowledge of statistical analysis so that the appropriate
statistical tests were used and the results are honest. The
authors also thank the subjects for donating their time to
allow the study to be completed. There are no professional
relationships with companies or manufacturers who will
benefit from the results of this study. The results of this study
do not constitute endorsement by ACSM or of any
particular company or producer for the materials used in
this study.
REFERENCES
1. Barnes, J. Myofascial Release: The “Missing Link” in Your Treatment,
1995 AU6.
2. Chaudhry, H, Schleip, R, Ji, Z, Bukiet, B, Maney, M, and Findley, T.
Three-dimensional mathematical model for deformation of human
fasciae in manual therapy. 108: 379–390, 2008 AU7.
3. Curran, PF, Fiore, RD, and Crisco, JJ. A comparison of the pressure
exerted on soft tissue by two myofascial rollers. 17: 432–442, 2008.
4. Kaltenborn, J. The foam roll: A Complement to any therapy. 11: 38–
39, 2006.
5. Kamper, SJ, Ostelo, RWJG, Knol, DL, Maher, CG, De Vet, HCW,
and Hancock, MJ. Global Perceived Effect scales provided reliable
assessments of health transition in people with musculoskeletal
disorders, but ratings are strongly influenced by current status. 63:
760–766, 2010.
6. Macdonald, G, Penney, M, Mullaley, M, Cuconato, A, Drake, C,
Behm, DG, and Button, DC. An Acute bout of self myofascial
release increases range of motion without a subsequent decrease in
muscle Activation or force, 2012. Available at: http://www.ncbi.
nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22580977. Accessed February 7, 2013.
7. Macdonald, GZ, Button, DC, Drinkwater, EJ, and Behm, DG. Foam
rolling as a recovery tool after an intense bout of physical activity.
46: 131–142, 2014. Available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/
pubmed/24343353. Accessed February 19, 2014.
8. McClellan, EA. Comparison of myofascial release and static
stretching on active range of motion and muscle activity: 1–124,
2003 AU8.
9. Miller, JK and Rockey, AM. Foam rollers show no increase in the
flexibility of the hamstring muscle group. 4: 1–4, 2006.
10. Moreside, JM, Mcgill, SM, and Sciences, N. Improvements in hip
flexibility do not transfer to mobility in functional movement
patterns. 27: 2635–2643, 2013.
11. Myers, T. Anatomy Trains: Myofascial Meridians for Manual and
Movement Therapists (2nd ed.). United Kingdom: Elsevier Limited,
2009 AU9.
12. Threlkeld, AJ. The effects of manual therapy on connective tissue.
72: 893–902, 1992.
13. Weerapong, P, Hume, PA, and Kolt, GS. The mechanisms of
massage and effects on performance, muscle recovery and injury
prevention. 35: 235–256, 2005.
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
the TM
| www.nsca.com
VOLUME 00 | NUMBER 00 | MONTH 2015 | 7