Postgraduate Program in Physical Education, School of Physical Education and Sports, Federal University of Rio De Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil; Estácio de Sá University, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil; Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
Postgraduate Program in Physical Education, School of Physical Education and Sports, Federal University of Rio De Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil; Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil; Undergraduate Program in Physical Education and Physical Therapy, Augusto Motta University Centre, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
J Bodyw Mov Ther. 2023 Jan;33:82-87. doi: 10.1016/j.jbmt.2022.09.011. Epub 2022 Sep 23.
The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of myofascial release and muscle energy on acute outcomes in trunk extensors active range-of-motion and strength in recreationally resistance-trained women. Seventeen apparently healthy women performed three experimental protocols using a cross-over, randomized (counterbalanced in Latin Square format), and within-subjects design: a) range-of-motion and strength test after a manual myofascial release protocol (MFR); b) flexibility and strength test after a muscle energy protocol (ME); and c) range-of-motion and strength test without myofascial release or muscle energy (control condition). Active trunk range-of-motion was measured via a sit-and-reach test and trunk extension strength via isometric dorsal dynamometer. A significant increase in range-of-motion was found for MFR (p = 0.002; d = 0.71) and ME (p < 0.001; d = 0.47) when comparing post-intervention with baseline values. Similarly, a significant increase for strength was found for MFR (p = 0.018; d = 0.10) when comparing post-intervention with baseline values. In conclusion, both techniques (MFR and ME) improved trunk range-of-motion with the sit and reach test immediately post-intervention; however, MFR showed greater magnitude increases in range-of-motion (MFR: (medium magnitude) vs ME: small magnitude). Due to the potential health implications, both (MFR and ME) responses should be among the many considerations for rehabilitation and performance exercise prescription when prescribing an exercise regimen.
本研究旨在比较肌筋膜松解和肌肉能量对有规律进行抗阻训练的女性躯干伸肌主动活动范围和力量的急性效果。17 名健康女性使用交叉、随机(拉丁方平衡)和自身对照设计进行了三项实验方案:a)手动肌筋膜松解方案(MFR)后进行活动范围和力量测试;b)肌肉能量方案(ME)后进行柔韧性和力量测试;c)无肌筋膜松解或肌肉能量的活动范围和力量测试(对照条件)。通过坐立前伸测试测量躯干主动活动范围,通过等速背力计测量躯干伸展力量。与基线值相比,MFR(p=0.002;d=0.71)和 ME(p<0.001;d=0.47)的干预后测量值均显著增加。同样,与基线值相比,MFR 的力量也有显著增加(p=0.018;d=0.10)。总之,两种技术(MFR 和 ME)都能立即提高坐立前伸测试中的躯干活动范围;然而,MFR 显示出更大的活动范围增加幅度(MFR:(中等幅度)与 ME:小幅度)。由于潜在的健康影响,在制定运动方案时,对于康复和表现运动处方,应考虑到这两种(MFR 和 ME)反应。