The purpose of this study was to investigate the influence of a single static, ballistic, or proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation (PNF) stretching exercise on the various muscle‐tendon parameters of the lower leg and to detect possible differences in the effects between the methods. Volunteers (n = 122) were randomly divided into static, ballistic, and PNF stretching groups and a control group. Before and after the 4 × 30 s stretching intervention, we determined the maximum dorsiflexion range of motion (RoM) with the corresponding fascicle length and pennation angle of the gastrocnemius medialis. Passive resistive torque (PRT) and maximum voluntary contraction (MVC) were measured with a dynamometer. Observation of muscle‐tendon junction (MTJ) displacement with ultrasound allowed us to determine the length changes in the tendon and muscle, respectively, and hence to calculate stiffness. Although RoM increased (static: +4.3%, ballistic: +4.5%, PNF: +3.5%), PRT (static: −11.4%, ballistic: −11.5%, PNF: −13,7%), muscle stiffness (static: −13.1%, ballistic: −20.3%, PNF: −20.2%), and muscle‐tendon stiffness (static: −11.3%, ballistic: −10.5%, PNF: −13.7%) decreased significantly in all the stretching groups. Only in the PNF stretching group, the pennation angle in the stretched position (−4.2%) and plantar flexor MVC (−4.6%) decreased significantly. Multivariate analysis showed no clinically relevant difference between the stretching groups. The increase in RoM and the decrease in PRT and muscle‐tendon stiffness could be explained by more compliant muscle tissue following a single static, ballistic, or PNF stretching exercise.

“Foam Rolling” has been used in sports settings to increase range of motion and decrease muscle stiffness without decreasing muscle strength and athletic performance. However, there has been no study investigating the acute and prolonged effect of different durations of foam rolling intervention on muscle stiffness, and the minimum foam rolling intervention duration required to decrease muscle stiffness is unclear. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to investigate the acute and prolonged effect of different durations of foam rolling intervention on ROM, muscle stiffness, and muscle strength. The 45 participants were randomly allocated to 1 of 3 groups (30 s × 1 times group vs 30 s × 3 times group vs 30 s× 10 times group). The outcome measures were dorsiflexion range of motion, shear elastic modulus of medial gastrocnemius, and muscle strength before, 2 min and 30 min after foam rolling intervention. There were no significant differences before and 2 min after foam rolling intervention in 30 s×1 time group, whereas dorsiflexion range of motion was increased in both 30 s×3 times group (p = 0.042, d = 0.26) and 30 s× 10 times group (p < 0.01, d = 0.33). However, the increase in dorsiflexion range of motion was returned to baseline value after 30 minutes in both 30 s × 3 times group and 30 s × 10 times group. In addition, there were no significant changes in shear elastic modulus and muscle strength in all groups. This study suggested that foam rolling for more than 90 s or more of foam rolling was effective in order to increase the range of motion immediately without changing muscle stiffness and muscle strength.

Although stretching can acutely increase joint range of motion (ROM), there are a variety of factors which could influence the extent of stretch-induced flexibility such as participant characteristics, stretching intensities, durations, type (technique), and muscle or joint tested. The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to investigate the acute effects of stretching on ROM including moderating variables such as muscles tested, stretch techniques, intensity, sex, and trained state. A random-effect meta-analysis was performed from 47 eligible studies (110 effect sizes). A mixed-effect meta-analysis subgroup analysis was also performed on the moderating variables. A meta-regression was also performed between age and stretch duration. GRADE analysis was used to assess the quality of evidence obtained from this meta-analysis. The meta-analysis revealed a small ROM standard mean difference in favor of an acute bout of stretching compared to non-active control condition (ES = −0.555; Z = −8.939; CI (95%) −0.677 to −0.434; p < 0.001; I2 = 33.32). While there were ROM increases with sit and reach (P = 0.038), hamstrings (P < 0.001), and triceps surae (P = 0.002) tests, there was no change with the hip adductor test (P = 0.403). Further subgroup analyses revealed no significant difference in stretch intensity (P = 0.76), trained state (P = 0.99), stretching techniques (P = 0.72), and sex (P = 0.89). Finally, meta-regression showed no relationship between the ROM standard mean differences to age (R2 = −0.03; P = 0.56) and stretch duration (R2 = 0.00; P = 0.39), respectively. GRADE analysis indicated that we can be moderately confident in the effect estimates. A single bout of stretching can be considered effective for providing acute small magnitude ROM improvements for most ROM tests, which are not significantly affected by stretch intensity, participants’ trained state, stretching techniques, and sex.

Background: A single foam-rolling exercise can acutely increase the range of motion (ROM) of a joint. However, to date the adaptational effects of foam-rolling training over several weeks on joint ROM are not well understood. Objective: The purpose of this meta-analysis was to investigate the effects of foam-rolling training interventions on joint ROM in healthy participants. Methods: Results were assessed from 11 studies (either controlled trials [CT] or randomized controlled trials [RCTs]) and 46 effect sizes by applying a random-effect meta-analysis. Moreover, by applying a mixed-effect model, we performed subgroup analyses, which included comparisons of the intervention duration (≤ 4 weeks vs > 4 weeks), comparisons between muscles tested (e.g., hamstrings vs quadriceps vs triceps surae), and study designs (RCT vs CT). Results: Our main analysis of 290 participants with a mean age of 23.9 (± 6.3 years) indicated a moderate effect of foam-rolling training on ROM increases in the experimental compared to the control group (ES = 0.823; Z = 3.237; 95% CI 0.325–1.322; p = 0.001; I² = 72.76). Subgroup analyses revealed no significant differences between study designs (p = 0.36). However, a significant difference was observed in the intervention duration in favor of interventions > 4 weeks compared to ≤ 4 weeks for ROM increases (p = 0.049). Moreover, a further subgroup analysis showed significant differences between the muscles tested (p = 0.047) in the eligible studies. Foam rolling increased joint ROM when applied to hamstrings and quadriceps, while no improvement in ankle dorsiflexion was observed when foam rolling was applied to triceps surae. Conclusion: Longer duration interventions (> 4 weeks) are needed to induce ROM gains while there is evidence that responses are muscle or joint specific. Future research should examine possible mechanisms underpinning ROM increases following different foam-rolling protocols, to allow for informed recommendations in healthy and clinical populations.