Acute Effects of Moist Heat and Foam Rolling on Dynamic Hamstrings Flexibility and Hip Joint Range of Motion in NCAA Division II Female Lacrosse Athletes
While there are many methods used by athletes to decrease muscle tightness and thus increase range of motion (heating, stretching, joint mobilizations), one of the newest and least studied methods is foam rolling. While purported to increase range of motion, decrease delayed onset muscle soreness (DOMS), and increase athletic performance, there is very little scientific research to date on the validity of these claims, particularly increasing range of motion, which is how it is most commonly used. Purpose: The purpose of this study was to compare the acute effects of moist heat, foam rolling, and a combination of both methods on hip joint range of motion. Methods: Eleven NCAA Division II female lacrosse athletes volunteered for the study. The participants had a mean height, body weight, age, and years of lacrosse experience of 163.43 ± 8.5 em, 62.15 ± 9.0 kg, 19.9 ± 1.51 years, and 6.55 ± 3.83 years of experience, respectively. A pre-season baseline measurement of active hip flexion range of motion was taken before the beginning of the lacrosse season. Participants reported for testing at the same time of day on the Monday of three consecutive weeks. Athletes began each day by having baseline active hip flexion range of motion measured, followed by one of three interventions in a randomized order: application of a moist hot pack for 10 minutes, foam rolling the hamstrings for three sets of 60 seconds with sets separated by 15 seconds, or a combination of heating followed by foam rolling. Immediately following the intervention, participants had range of motion measured again using the same protocols. All measurements were taken three times and then averaged. Results: A two-way repeated measures ANOV A showed that all three interventions significantly increased range of motion (p < 0.00 I) from pre-post intervention, however no intervention Effect of Heating and Foam Rolling on Range of Motion 3 increased range of motion more than any other intervention by a statistically significant margin (p > 0.05). Despite the lack of statistical significance, effect sizes indicated that the combination intervention had the largest magnitude of practical effect with a large effect size (d = 0.85), while heating and foam rolling had medium effect sizes (d = 0.54, d = 0.41 respectively). Heating increased range of motion by a mean of 8.14 ± 3.17 degrees, while foam rolling and the combination increased range of motion by means of 5.93 ± 3.9 degrees and 9.91 ± 6.83 degrees, respectively. Conclusions: These results indicate that heating, foam rolling, and a combination of both can all be effective in acutely increasing range of motion. However, the combination of both treatments may be most effective, time and resources allowing. Further studies may wish to investigate the effects that foam rolling on consecutive days has on range of motion, or other combinations, such as heating, stretching, and foam rolling with a larger, more diverse population of participants. Future studies could also investigate the effects of heating and foam rolling on different muscles or joints. Practical Applications: Oftentimes, those in the sports medicine community are short on time and must help multiple athletes at once. The results show that athletes can perform heating and foam rolling on their own and see significant increases in range of motion. Findings also indicate that, if limited on time, athletes can either heat or foam roll and have a decrease in muscle tightness. Athletic departments with a minimal budget can also invest in a hydrocollator with hot packs and foam rollers and potentially see similar results as more expensive treatments options.
