Static Stretch Training versus Foam Rolling Training Effects on Range of Motion: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

• Published in: Sports medicine (Auckland) Vol. 54; no. 9; pp. 2311 - 2326
• Main Authors: Konrad, Andreas, Alizadeh, Shahab, Anvar, Saman Hadjizadeh, Fischer, Josef, Manieu, Josefina, Behm, David G.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Cham Springer International Publishing 01.09.2024; Springer Nature B.V
• Subjects: Clinical trials; Flexibility; Humans; Intervention; Keywords; Medicine; Medicine & Public Health; Meta-analysis; Muscle Stretching Exercises; Range of motion; Range of Motion, Articular; Sports Medicine; Strength training; Systematic Review
• ISSN: 0112-1642; 1179-2035; 1179-2035
• DOI: 10.1007/s40279-024-02041-0

Background Long-term static stretching as well as foam rolling training can increase a joint’s range of motion (ROM). However, to date, it is not clear which method is the most effective for increasing ROM. Objective The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare the effects of static stretching and foam rolling training on ROM. Methods The literature search was performed in PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science to find the eligible studies. Eighty-five studies (72 on static stretching; and 13 on foam rolling) were found to be eligible with 204 effect sizes (ESs). For the main analyses, a random-effect meta-analysis was applied. To assess the difference between static stretching and foam rolling, subgroup analyses with a mixed-effect model were applied. Moderating variables were sex, total intervention duration, and weeks of intervention. Results Static stretch (ES =  − 1.006; p  < 0.001), as well as foam rolling training (ES =  − 0.729; p  = 0.001), can increase joint ROM with a moderate magnitude compared with a control condition. However, we did not detect a significant difference between the two conditions in the subgroup analysis ( p  = 0.228). When the intervention duration was ≤ 4 weeks, however, a significant change in ROM was shown following static stretching (ES =  − 1.436; p  < 0.001), but not following foam rolling (ES =  − 0.229; p  = 0.248). Thus, a subgroup analysis indicated a significant favorable effect with static stretching for increasing ROM compared with foam rolling ( p  < 0.001) over a shorter term (≤ 4 weeks). Other moderator analyses showed no significant difference between static stretch and foam rolling training on ROM. Conclusions According to the results, both static stretching and foam rolling training can be similarly recommended to increase joint ROM, unless the training is scheduled for ≤ 4 weeks, in which case static stretching demonstrates a significant advantage. More studies are needed with a high-volume foam rolling training approach as well as foam rolling training in exclusively female participants.