Journal of bodywork and movement therapies · 2025
Acute effects of traditional and self-myofascial release warm-up protocols on ankle flexibility and short-distance swimming performance in young competitive swimmers.
СтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Mersin Hacer Tuba, Agopyan Ani
Аннотация
AIM: This study examined the acute effects of three warm-up protocols-traditional land- and water-based warm-ups as well as self-myofascial release (SMR) using a foam roller with and without vibration-on ankle flexibility and short-distance swimming performance in competitive female swimmers.
METHOD: Nineteen athletes (age: 11.07 ± 1.42 years) participated in a three-day randomized crossover warm-up protocol. Each athlete performed: (1) a traditional warm-up, (2) the same warm-up followed by vibrating foam rolling (1800R), and (3) the same warm-up followed by non-vibrating foam rolling (Livepro-LP8236). SMR was applied for 4 × 30 s with 10-s rests targeting the quadriceps femoris, gluteus maximus, hamstrings, triceps surae, and plantar fascia. Ankle range of motion was measured using Kinovea-0.9.5. Freestyle 25 m-50 m kicking performance (time, speed, and frequency) was evaluated using video analysis.
RESULTS: Friedman test results revealed no statistically significant differences between the three conditions for any parameter (p > 0.05): right and left ankle dorsiflexion (effect size [ES] = 0.33-0.59), plantar flexion (ES = 0.36-0.51), and kicking performance (kicking time: ES = 0.32-0.39; speed: ES = 0.33-0.43; count: ES = 0.10-0.24) (p > 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: While no acute benefits were observed, both vibrating and non-vibrating foam rolling can be safely included in swimmers' warm-up routines. Further research with larger samples and varied protocols is recommended.
METHOD: Nineteen athletes (age: 11.07 ± 1.42 years) participated in a three-day randomized crossover warm-up protocol. Each athlete performed: (1) a traditional warm-up, (2) the same warm-up followed by vibrating foam rolling (1800R), and (3) the same warm-up followed by non-vibrating foam rolling (Livepro-LP8236). SMR was applied for 4 × 30 s with 10-s rests targeting the quadriceps femoris, gluteus maximus, hamstrings, triceps surae, and plantar fascia. Ankle range of motion was measured using Kinovea-0.9.5. Freestyle 25 m-50 m kicking performance (time, speed, and frequency) was evaluated using video analysis.
RESULTS: Friedman test results revealed no statistically significant differences between the three conditions for any parameter (p > 0.05): right and left ankle dorsiflexion (effect size [ES] = 0.33-0.59), plantar flexion (ES = 0.36-0.51), and kicking performance (kicking time: ES = 0.32-0.39; speed: ES = 0.33-0.43; count: ES = 0.10-0.24) (p > 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: While no acute benefits were observed, both vibrating and non-vibrating foam rolling can be safely included in swimmers' warm-up routines. Further research with larger samples and varied protocols is recommended.