Background/Objectives: Cycling has become a popular recreational sport, but it can lead to injuries and overload syndromes. The goal of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of a training-accompanied myofascial self-massage intervention on two primary outcomes: injury occurrence and perceived training intensity. Methods: To achieve this goal, we conducted a randomized controlled trial (RCT) with 35 cyclists. A difference-in-differences (DiD) regression analysis was employed to analyze the effects of the intervention. Results: The DiD analysis revealed, on the one hand, no statistically significant effect of the intervention on the overall injury score. On the other hand, the intervention group showed a significantly smaller increase in perceived training intensity compared to the control group, supporting the hypothesis that myofascial self-massage decreases the perception of training intensity. In one of our strongest models, which estimated the impact of the intervention from baseline to the second post-test, we observed an adjusted R-squared value of 0.89 and an interaction term coefficient of 1.35 at a significance level of p < 0.01. This indicates that, on average, the increase in perceived training intensity was 1.35 points higher (on a scale of 0 to 10) in the control group than in the intervention group. Conclusions: This study found no evidence to support the effectiveness of a training-accompanied myofascial self-massage in reducing injury levels, but it demonstrated that the intervention may reduce perceived training intensity. Future studies with larger sample sizes and more objective injury tracking methods are needed to further explore these findings and their long-term implications for injury prevention in cycling.

Background/Objectives: Cycling became a popular recreational sport, but it can lead to injuries and overload syndromes. The goal of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of a training-accompanying myofascial self-massage intervention on two primary outcomes: injury occurrence and perceived training intensity. Methods: To achieve this goal we conducted a randomized controlled trial (RCT) with 35 cyclists. A difference-in-differences (DiD) regression analysis was employed to analyze the effects of the intervention. Results: The DiD analysis revealed, on the one hand, no statistically significant effect of the intervention on the overall injury score, which was observed to decrease equally in both the intervention and control groups. On the other hand, the intervention group showed a significantly smaller increase in perceived training intensity compared to the control group, supporting the hypothesis that myofascial self-massage decreases the perception of training intensity. Conclusions: The study found no evidence to support the effectiveness of a training-accompanying myofascial self-massage in reducing injury levels, but it demonstrated that the intervention may reduce perceived training intensity. Future studies with larger sample sizes and more objective injury tracking methods are needed to further explore these findings and their long-term implications for injury prevention in cycling.

Background: Foam rolling has become an increasingly popular self-myofascial release (SMR) technique among athletes to prevent injuries, improve recovery, and increase athletic performance. This study investigated how SMR improves mechanical and movement efficiency in recreational road cyclists. Methods: We conducted an exploratory randomized controlled trial (RCT) to investigate the effects of SMR using a foam roller on biomechanical and physiological performance parameters over a six-month period. A total of 32 male participants, aged 26–57 years, with a mean Body Mass Index (BMI) of 24.0 kg/m² (SD = 2.2), were randomly assigned to either an intervention group (n = 16), which incorporated a standardized SMR program into their post-exercise recovery, or a control group (n = 16), which followed the same cycling protocol without SMR. The training program included heart rate-controlled strength endurance intervals. As the primary target, the variables we investigated included torque effectiveness, leg force symmetry, and pedal smoothness. Secondary measurements included submaximal oxygen uptake (VO₂) as well as bioelectrical variables, which we analyzed using classic, repeated-measures ANOVA models and descriptive statistical methods. Results: The analysis revealed significant interaction effects in favor of the intervention group for torque effectiveness (η²_p = 0.434), leg strength symmetry (η²_p = 0.303), and pedal smoothness (η²_p = 0.993). No significant group × time interactions were found for submaximal VO₂ or bioelectrical parameters. Conclusions: Our findings indicate that foam rolling may serve as an effective adjunct to endurance training by enhancing functional neuromuscular performance in cyclists, particularly in torque control and pedal coordination. Its impact on aerobic efficiency and muscle composition appears to be minimal. The results support theoretical models that attribute SMR benefits to proprioceptive, circulatory, and neuromuscular mechanisms rather than structural tissue adaptations.

Background: Foam rolling is a popular self-myofascial release (SMR) technique, yet empirical evidence regarding its long-term impact on cycling endurance remains inconclusive. This study investigated the effects of chronic SMR on cardiorespiratory capacity, metabolic kinetics, and mechanical performance in road cyclists. Methods: We conducted a six-month randomized controlled trial (RCT) with 32 male recreational cyclists. Both an intervention group (IG) and a control group (CG) followed a standardized training protocol. The IG additionally applied a Blackroll^® foam roller immediately after cycling training sessions. Outcomes included maximum oxygen uptake (VO₂max), submaximal heart rate, lactate slope, and relative mechanical power (W/kg) at aerobic and anaerobic thresholds. Data were analyzed using linear mixed-effects models (LMM), with age included as a fixed-effect covariate to control for baseline imbalances between groups. Effect sizes were determined via marginal and conditional R². Additionally, model robustness was verified through Shapiro–Wilk tests and Q–Q plots of conditional residuals. Results: No significant effects were observed for VO₂max or submaximal heart rate. In contrast the IG demonstrated significant improvements in metabolic kinetics, evidenced by a reduced lactate slope (p = 0.004). Furthermore, foam rolling yielded a statistically significant positive effect on relative mechanical performance at both the aerobic (p = 0.031) and anaerobic (p = 0.007) lactate thresholds. Sensitivity analyses confirmed that these effects were independent of the age difference between groups. Conclusions: Foam rolling did not enhance all endurance-related variables but showed positive effects on metabolic kinetics and mechanical performance. While it did not shift systemic cardiorespiratory limits, SMR appeared to optimize performance through improved metabolic economy and mechanical efficiency, suggesting it is a valuable supplemental tool for recovery and long-term performance maintenance in cycling.