ACUTE EFFECTS OF DEEP TISSUE FOAM ROLLING AND
DYNAMIC STRETCHING ON MUSCULAR STRENGTH,
POWER, AND FLEXIBILITY IN DIVISION I LINEMEN
BRANDON BEHARA AND BERT H. JACOBSON
Health and Human Performance Laboratory, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, Oklahoma
ABSTRACT
Behara, B and Jacobson, BH. Acute effects of deep tissue
foam rolling and dynamic stretching on muscular strength,
power, and flexibility in Division I linemen. J Strength Cond Res
31(4): 888–892, 2017—A recent strategy to increase sports
performance is a self-massage technique called myofascial
release using foam rollers. Myofascial restrictions are believed
to be brought on by injuries, muscle imbalances, overrecruit-
ment, and/or inflammation, all of which can decrease sports
performance. The purpose of this study was to compare the
acute effects of a single-bout of lower extremity self-myofascial
release using a custom deep tissue roller (DTR) and a dynamic
stretch protocol. Subjects consisted of NCAA Division 1 offen-
sive linemen (n = 14) at a Midwestern university. All players
were briefed on the objectives of the study and subsequently
signed an approved IRB consent document. A randomized
crossover design was used to assess each dependent variable
(vertical jump [VJ] power and velocity, knee isometric torque,
and hip range of motion was assessed before and after: [a] no
treatment, [b] deep tissue foam rolling, and [c] dynamic
stretching). Results of repeated-measures analysis of variance
yielded no pretest to posttest significant differences (p . 0.05)
among the groups for VJ peak power (p = 0.45), VJ average
power (p = 0.16), VJ peak velocity (p = 0.25), VJ average
velocity (p = 0.23), peak knee extension torque (p = 0.63),
average knee extension torque (p = 0.11), peak knee flexion
torque (p = 0.63), or average knee flexion torque (p = 0.22).
However, hip flexibility was statistically significant when tested
after both dynamic stretching and foam rolling (p = 0.0001).
Although no changes in strength or power was evident,
increased flexibility after DTR may be used interchangeably
with traditional stretching exercises.
KEY WORDS myofascial release, range of motion, torque
Address correspondence to Bert H. Jacobson, Bert.jacobson@okstate.edu.
31(4)/888–892
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Ó 2015 National Strength and Conditioning Association
the TM
888 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
INTRODUCTION
M
assage and stretching causes a decrease in
motor unit activation, while also increasing
flexibility and decreasing perceived muscular
pain (6). Fibrous adhesions are believed to
occur from trauma at a micronized level during hard phys-
ical activity. These adhesions have been shown to inhibit
typical mechanics of the muscle such as joint range of
motion, muscle length, muscle coordination, and decreased
strength and power production (1,4). Massage and similar
techniques are believed to be effective in treating fibrous
adhesions in the fascia (1).
A recent strategy to increase sports performance is
a massage technique called myofascial release. This tech-
nique was created by Barnes (1) as a way to reduce fibrous
adhesions that occur between layers of fascia/connective
tissue (9). These fibrous adhesions are believed to be brought
on by injuries, imbalances in the muscles, overrecruitment of
muscle fibers, overworked muscles, recurring microtrauma,
and inflammation (7). Areas of tightness in the muscles are
generally referred to as myofascial trigger points and are
defined as a “hypertensive palpable nodule or taut bands”
of muscle tissue that is commonly found in the muscle belly
(5). Myofascial release and massage techniques are used to
break up these fibrous adhesions; but, the disadvantage of
these techniques is that they generally are very time con-
suming with sessions lasting up to 90 minutes (12).
Self-myofascial release (SMR), a technique mimicking
myofascial release is believed to have similar benefits as that
of therapeutic myofascial release (9). However, the differ-
ence is that individuals performing SMR use their own body
weight or leverage to apply pressure to the selected area.
Foam rolling through the use of cylindrical tubes constructed
of foam (foam rollers) has recently been introduced as part of
training routines. Foam rollers, are placed on the floor and
the individuals simply lays the thigh, buttocks, or back on
the foam roller and moves back and forth applying pressure
to the selected area.
Okamoto et al. (11) suggested that foam rolling restores
muscles, tendons, ligaments, fascia, and soft-tissue extensibil-
ity. MacDonald et al. (9) concluded that SMR through
smooth foam rollers enhanced knee joint range of motion
 the TM

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca.com

(ROM); however, foam rolling had no effect on maximal

knee extension force. Two additional studies (10,14) com-
TABLE 1. Subject’s characteristics.
paring static stretching, foam rolling, and foam rolling com-
bined with static stretching on passive hip flexion found Variable Mean 6 SD
a significant (p = 0.001) change in ROM regardless of treat-
Age (y) 20.04 6 1.41
ment. However, those receiving foam rolling and static
Weight (kg) 136.28 6 6.67
stretching had a greater change than static stretch, foam Weight (lb) 300.45 6 14.70
rolling, or control. Height (cm) 194.92 6 3.63
Regarding performance, one study (7) compared planking Height (feet; inches) 76.74 6 1.32
with foam rolling and found no significant differences Body fat (%) 25.06 6 4.09
between the 2 treatments on the vertical jump (VJ) height
and power, isometric force, or agility. However, foam rolling
significantly reduced postexercise fatigue. Similarly, Sullivan
et al. (15) found no significant effect on maximum voluntary
muscle strength but significant increases in ROM for the sit- fascia in multiple directions. To our knowledge, no research
and-reach test after selected durations of foam rolling. exists that has used this particular type of foam roller to
All current research has been conducted with smooth assess its effect on selected variables. Thus, the approach to
foam rollers. Recently, a new type of foam roller has become this problem was to compare deep tissue foam rolling,
available (The Rumble Roller; STI, Baton Rouge, LA, USA), dynamic stretch, and no intervention on lower body
which will be described as a deep tissue roller (DTR). The strength, power, velocity, and ROM.
difference between a regular smooth foam rollers and the Subjects
DTR is that the DTR contains “high-profile” nodules that Subjects were well-trained NCAA Division 1 football offen-
are semiflexible but firm and advertised as “much like the sive linemen (n = 14) 18 years or older (range = 18–24 years)
thumbs of a massage therapist.” The nodules have an asym- who had been competitive for more than 6 years in organized
metrical shape and are spaced a little less than 50 cm apart sports. Table 1 provides the physical characteristics of the
and protrude about 10 cm from the surface of the roller on subjects. The study took place in the off-season (summer),
an alternating basis so that several of the nodules contact the and all testing was done in the athletic facility. All subjects
body simultaneously. Thus theoretically, the DTR exerts met with the researchers and were briefed on the require-
more pressure because it does not contact a large surface ments and objectives of the study and were informed of the
area like a smooth roller. Although smooth foam rollers have benefits and risks of the investigation before signing an insti-
been looked into, the aforementioned aggressive DTR rollers tutionally approved informed consent document to partici-
have yet to be investigated. Given the drastically altered pate in the study. Additionally, subjects completed a health
surface of these rollers, it is possible that a protocol using history questionnaire to ensure that the subjects qualified to
the rollers may not result in similar findings as those using participate in the study. Subject inclusion criteria consisted of
smooth rollers. To date, little information exists to evaluate no major lower extremity injury in the last year, not currently
these DTRs on certain performance variables. It is important engaging in any stretching or flexibility program, free from
to ascertain the effect of the DTRs on certain performance any current injury or disease that could affect strength, power,
parameters so that coaches, trainers, and exercise enthusiasts or flexibility, and free of any circulation problems.
can determine if and when to use them. The purpose of this
study was to compare deep tissue rolling, dynamic stretch,
and no intervention on VJ velocity and power, peak and
average knee torque production, and hip ROM.
TABLE 2. Peak vertical jump power mean, SD,
and CIs, by treatment (Pretest, Foam Roller, and
METHODS
Dynamic Stretch) (p = 0.45).
Experimental Approach to the Problem
The amount of effort and time to train these elite athletes are Mean
Variable N (W) SD 95% CI
extensive and limited. Finding the best methods to achieve
top physical conditioning is imperative. This study incorpo- Baseline 14 4,282.91 487.81 3,950.51–
rated Division I football players and a new novel foam roller 4,615.65
to ascertain the effect of its use on certain variables Foam roll 14 4,372.46 474.57 4,044.85–
consistent with the sport. A random crossover design was 4,700.05
Dynamic 14 4,318.73 418.52 4,066.62–
used to compare selected physical variables. This study stretch 4,570.65
aimed to use a more aggressive foam roller (The Rumble
Roller) equipped with raised nodules to allegedly stimulate
deeper layers of muscle tissue and to stretch muscle and

VOLUME 31 | NUMBER 4 | APRIL 2017 | 889

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Effects of Deep Tissue Foam Rolling

TABLE 3. Average vertical jump power mean, SD, TABLE 5. Average vertical jump velocity means,
and CIs by treatment (Pretest, Foam Roller, and SD, and CIs by group (Pretest, Foam Roller,
Dynamic Stretch) (p = 0.16). Dynamic Stretch) (p = 0.23).

Mean Mean
Variable N (W) SD 95% CI Variable N (m$s21) SD 95% CI

Baseline 14 2,386.10 349.64 2,119.93– Baseline 14 1.77 1.79 1.61–

2,652.25 1.93
Foam roll 14 2,544.55 383.64 2,283.33– Foam roll 14 1.90 1.89 1.74–
2,805.76 2.06
Dynamic 14 2,485.18 353.40 2,232.75– Dynamic 14 1.85 1.84 1.69–
stretch 2,737.62 stretch 2.01

Procedures DTR protocol. The no-intervention group remained inactive

For the first or three visits, subjects reported to the weight
room wearing athletic shorts, shoes, and a t-shirt. Assessments
consisted of the recording of demographic information and
anthropometric data (i.e., height and weight) of each partic-
ipant. After these measures, each participant warmed up on
a cycle ergometer for 5 minutes with a low resistance at 70
revolutions per minute. After the warm-up, each subject was
pretested on VJ peak and average power and peak and
average velocity, peak and average isometric knee flexion
torque and extension torque, and hip flexion ROM. After
pretesting, subjects were randomly assigned to one of 2
groups, either the DTR or dynamic stretch (DS) or no
intervention. Deep tissue roller consisted of rolling on each
extremity unilaterally for 1 minute (i.e., left and right ham-
strings, left and right quadriceps, left and right gluteus
maximus, and left and right gastrocnemius) for a total of
8 minutes. The DS protocol consisted of stretching the same
muscles as those involved in the DTR protocol. Each stretch
was formed slowly and under control to avoid a bouncing
motion. Dynamic stretch stretching was coordinated to reflect
equal time (8 minutes total) for each muscle group as with the
for the same amount of time. Immediately after treatment,
postassessments were identical to the pretests. The second
and third session was each scheduled exactly 1 week apart at
the same time of day, and the groups were randomly assigned
to a different treatment each session.
Power (in Watts) and velocity (in meters per second)
assessments consisted of three counter movement VJs, whereas
peak and average power and peak and average velocity data
were collected by a Tendo Speed Analyzer (Tendo Sport
Machines, M.R. Stefanika 19, 911 01 Trencin, Slovak Republic)
connected to a laptop computer. The Tendo mat was placed on
the floor, and a nylon cord from the device was then attached
to a belt around the subjects’ waist. After the VJ, all participants
were assessed for hip flexion ROM using a Baseline Bubble
Inclinometer (Fabrication Enterprises, Inc., White Plains, NY,
USA). For testing, the subjects were supine on an examination
able and their nondominant leg strapped to the table to avoid
unwanted movement during the assessment. Next, a bubble
inclinometer was zeroed and placed on the anterior thigh just
above the knee, which was followed by the investigator pas-
sively stretching the hamstring by placing his left hand on the

TABLE 4. Peak vertical jump velocity, SD, and CIs TABLE 6. Peak isometric leg extension torque
by group (Pretest, Foam Roller, Dynamic means, SD, and CIs by group (Pretest, Foam
Stretch) (p = 0.25). Roller, Dynamic Stretch) (p = 0.63).

Mean Mean
Variable N (m$s21) SD 95% CI Variable N (N$m) SD 95% CI

Baseline 14 3.18 0.32 2.98– Baseline 14 221.63 40.15 197.26–

3.38 246.02
Foam roll 14 3.27 0.28 3.07– Foam roll 14 214.01 49.85 183.89–
3.46 244.14
Dynamic 14 3.22 0.27 3.05– Dynamic 14 208.44 60.25 172.03–
stretch 3.39 stretch 244.84

the TM

890 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 the TM

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca.com

TABLE 7. Average isometric leg extension torque TABLE 9. Average isometric leg flexion torque
means, SD, CIs by group (Pretest, Foam Roller, means, SD, and CIs by group (Pretest, Foam
Dynamic Stretch) (p = 0.11). Roller, Dynamic Stretch) (p = 0.22).

Mean Mean
Variable N (N$m) SD 95% CI Variable N (N$m) SD 95% CI

Baseline 14 211.30 37.96 188.48– Baseline 14 128.28 25.27 111.76–

132.12 144.79
Foam roll 14 206.99 51.52 175.85– Foam roll 14 118.08 15.25 108.40–
238.12 127.77
Dynamic 14 203.75 48.79 174.27– Dynamic 14 119.13 21.74 105.32–
stretch 233.24 stretch 132.95

ankle and pushing the ankle toward the subject until a slight
discomfort was felt and vocalized by the test subject. After the
ROM assessments, the subjects underwent quadriceps and
hamstring peak and average isometric torque measurements
using a Biodex System 4 Pro dynamometer (Biodex Medical
Systems, Shirley, NY, USA). Once the subjects were seated and
strapped in the seat, the knee was positioned at a 608 angle and
subjects were instructed to perform 3 warm-up repetitions for
both knee extension and knee flexion at about 75% of their
maximal effort. After the warm-up repetitions, the subjects
waited 2 minutes and then underwent maximal testing. Testing
consisted of 3 maximal knee extensions and flexion against the
padded lever arm of the Biodex System.
Statistical Analyses
All data were analyzed using IBM SPSS Version 21.0
Statistics (IBM Corporation, Armonk, NY, USA), and the
main descriptive parameters were calculated (arithmetic
mean and SD). To determine the statistical difference among
the groups, repeated-measures analyses of variance (AN-
OVAs) were conducted. Post hoc analyses were conducted
using Newman-Keuls post hoc measures. An alpha (a) level
was set to p # 0.05 to determine significance.
RESULTS
For peak VJ power, the DTR group and the DS group
slightly outperformed the baseline assessment (2.1% vs. 0.8%,
respectively); however, no significant (p = 0.45) differences
were found among the groups (Table 2). Similarly, the
repeated-measures ANOVA yielded no significant differen-
ces among the groups for average VJ power (p = 0.16) (Table
3). Regarding peak and average VJ velocity, neither depen-
dent variable resulted in group differences (p = 0.0.25 and
p = 0.23, respectively) (Tables 4 and 5).
No statistical significant differences were found for either
peak knee extension isometric torque (p = 0.37) (Table 6) or
average knee extension isometric torque (p = 0.62) (Table
7). Furthermore, no statistical significant differences were
found for peak and average knee flexion isometric torque
(p = 0.22 and p = 0.11, respectively). Interestingly, the
baseline torques for both knee extension and knee flexion
were greater than for either post-DTR or post-DS (Tables 8
and 9). For hip flexion ROM, both DTR and DS were
significantly (p = 0.0001) greater than baseline measure-
ments (Table 10). The DTR group demonstrated a 15.6%

TABLE 10. Hip flexion ROM means, SD, and CIs

TABLE 8. Peak isometric leg flexion torque group (Pretest, Foam Roller, Dynamic Stretch)
means, SD, and CIs by group (Pretest, Foam (p = 0.0001).
Roller, Dynamic Stretch) (p = 0.63).
Mean
Mean Variable N (8) SD 95% CI
Variable N (N$m) SD 95% CI
Baseline 12 94.17* 21.1 86.14–
Baseline 14 134.00 25.06 117.54– 102.19
150.46 Foam roll 12 108.92 15.51 99.06–
Foam roll 14 125.13 17.53 113.99– 118.77
136.26 Dynamic 12 111.77 13.44 102.31–
Dynamic 14 126.11 21.83 112.24– stretch 119.85
stretch 139.98
*p # 0.05.

VOLUME 31 | NUMBER 4 | APRIL 2017 | 891

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Effects of Deep Tissue Foam Rolling
increase in hip flexion ROM, whereas the DS group posted
a 19.9% increase.
DISCUSSION
These results conducted with a foam roller with “high-profile
bumps” correlated with previous research that used smooth
foam rollers or stretching before power, strength, and ROM
assessments. For instance, the current results agree with others
(7,9,15) in that both stretching and foam rolling may increase
joint ROM similarly. Furthermore, the current results suggest
that 8 minutes of DTR or DS had little impact on generation
of power, velocity, or torque for knee extension and flexion.
These finding are comparable with Healey et al. (7) who
found no difference in isometric force production or VJ height
after smooth foam rolling. These results were also similar to
MacDonald et al. (9) who studied the effects of foam rolling
on ROM, knee extension force, and muscle activation. The
authors concluded that foam rolling had no effect on the force
output of the quadriceps and no effect on muscle activation
but found a significant positive effect on knee ROM (i.e.,
approximately 7–108 greater than the control). Additionally,
the authors concluded that although foam rolling did increase
knee ROM, there was no deficit in muscle performance. A
similar study (3) concluded that foam rolling resulted in sig-
nificant (p # 0.05) gains in hip extension. Our study found
similar results in that although foam rolling enhanced ROM,
there was no detrimental effect of muscle force, power, or
velocity. Another similar study used a small handheld device
referred to as a roller-massager to assess its effects on ROM
and maximal voluntary isometric contraction after rolling the
hamstrings (15). The results showed a 4.3 and 2.3% increase in
ROM of a sit-and-reach test after using the roller-massager for
both 10 seconds and 5 seconds, respectively; however, there
were no significant effects on maximal isometric contraction.
Regarding the effects of DS and VJ power production,
Jaggers et al. (8) concluded that DS significantly increased VJ
power production. In contrast, Jaggers et al. used healthy
college-aged students, whereas our study used Division 1 col-
lege football linemen. Given the drastic body mass difference
between varsity football players (offensive line = avg. 136 kg)
and the general college male population, it is possible that
these variances led to the difference in results. The rationale
for an increased ROM after DTR has been addressed by many
researchers who have suggested that deep tissue rolling has
the ability to break down fibrous adhesions in the muscles and
restore elasticity to the fascia (1,4,16). Our results also illus-
trate that both DTR and DS significantly increase ROM with-
out a decrease in power and strength production. Deep tissue
rollers could possibly be an alternative to static stretching that
has been shown to increase ROM but also result in a stretch-
induced performance deficit when used before activities that
require strength and power (2,13).
A limitation of this study was the lack of experience by the
subjects using this type of foam roller. The aggressive nature
of this type of foam roller induces as a certain amount of
the TM
892 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
discomfort. Given that the subject’s weight plays a role in the
amount of pressure exerted on the tissues, this could have
a prompted the participants to attempt to reduce the pres-
sure exerted on the roller, thus not gaining full benefit or
detriment of the protocol.
PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS
Although the use of foam rollers do not appear to either
benefit or deter maximal isometric strength or velocity, DTR
does appear to enhance ROM and may be used in addition to
traditional stretching exercises to maintain or increase ROM
in athletes. As previously stated, DTR may be an appropriate
substitute for static stretching because of the potential static
stretch interference with the strength and power.
REFERENCES
1. Barnes, J. The basic science of myofascial release. J Bodyw Movt Ther
1: 231–238, 1997.
2. Behm, D, Button, D, and Butt, J. Factors affecting force loss with
prolonged stretching. Can J Appl Physiol 26: 261–272, 2001.
3. Bushell, JE, Dawson, SM, and Webster, MM. Clinical relevance of
foam rolling on hip extension angle in a functional lunge position. J
Strength Cond Res 29: 2397–2403, 2015.
4. Curran, P, Fiore, R, and Crisco, J. A comparison of the pressure exerted
on soft tissue by 2 myofascial rollers. J Sports Rehabil 17: 432–444, 2008.
5. Dippenaar, D, Korporaal, C, Jones, C, Brantingham, J, Globe, G, and
Synder, W. Myofascial trigger points in the quadriceps fremoris
muscle of patellofemoral pain syndrome subjects assessed and
correlated with nrs-101. J Am Chiropractic Assoc 45: 16–28, 2008.
6. Dishman, JD and Bulbulian, R. Comparison of effects of spinal
manipulation and massage on motoneuron excitability. Electromyogr
Clin Neurophysiol 41: 97–106, 2001.
7. Healey, K, Hatfield, D, Blanpied, P, Dorfman, L, and Riebe, D. The
effects of myofascial release with foam rolling on performance. J
Strength Cond Res 28: 61–68, 2013.
8. Jaggers, J, Swank, A, Frost, K, and Lee, C. The acute effects of
dynamic and ballistic stretching on vertical jump height, force, and
power. J Strength Cond Res 22: 1844–1849, 2008.
9. MacDonald, G, Penney, M, Mullaley, M, Cuconato, A, Drake, C,
Behm, D, and Button, D. An acute bout of self-myofascial release
increases range of motion without a subsequent decrease in muscle
activation or force. J Strength Cond Res 27: 812–821, 2013.
10. Mohr, A, Long, B, and Goad, C. Foam rolling and static stretching on
passive hip flexion range of motion. J Sport Rehabil 23: 296–299, 2014.
11. Okamoto, T, Masuhara, M, and Ikuta, K. Acute effects of self-
myofascial release using a foam roller on arterial function. J Strength
Cond Res 28: 69–73, 2014.
12. Paolini, J. Review of myofascial release as an effective massage
therapy technique. Athl Ther Today 14: 30–34, 2009.
13. Ryan, ED, Beck, TW, Herda, TJ, Hull, HR, Hartman, MJ, Stout, JR, and
Cramer, JT. Do practical durations of stretching alter muscle strength?
A dose-response study. Med Sci Sports Exerc 40: 1529–1537, 2008.
14. Škarabot, J, Beardsley, C, and Štirn, I. Comparing the effects of self-
myofascial release with static stretching on ankle range-of-motion in
Adolescent athletes. Int J Sports Phys Ther 10: 203–212, 2015.
15. Sullivan, K, Silvey, D, Button, D, and Behm, D. Roller-massager
application to the hamstrings increases sit-and-reach range of
motion within five to ten seconds without performance
impairments. Int J Sports phys Ther 8: 228, 2013.
16. Swann, E and Graner, J. Use of manual-therapy techniques in pain
management. Athl Ther Today 7: 14–17, 2002.