EffectsofSelf-MyofascialReleaseonAthletes'PhysicalPerformance:ASystematicReview

Self-myofascial release (SMR) has become increasingly popular among athletes and sports professionals as a tool for improving physical performance and recovery. SMR involves applying pressure to soft tissues using tools like foam rollers, massage rollers, lacrosse balls, and vibration devices. Despite its widespread use in warm-ups, cool-downs, and training sessions, there remains considerable uncertainty about which specific physical performance benefits SMR actually provides. Previous reviews have examined SMR in general populations or focused only on specific tools like foam rollers, leaving a gap in understanding how SMR affects athletes specifically across different sports and using various SMR instruments.

This systematic review aimed to synthesize the evidence on SMR effects on key performance variables in athletic populations, including flexibility, strength, speed, agility, and recovery factors.

The researchers conducted a comprehensive systematic review following PRISMA guidelines, searching four major databases (PubMed, Web of Science, ScienceDirect, and Cochrane) for studies published between January 2008 and September 2023. They used a PICO strategy with keywords related to athletes, SMR, foam rolling, and various performance outcomes. From 567 initially identified articles, they screened and ultimately included 25 studies involving 517 athletes (363 men, 154 women) aged 14–37 years. The included studies comprised 12 randomized controlled trials and 13 randomized crossover designs.

Study quality was assessed using the PEDro scale, with all included studies scoring 6 or higher out of 11. The researchers extracted data on study objectives, participant characteristics, intervention protocols, measurement methods, and main results. They organized findings into categories: flexibility/mobility, strength, speed, agility, and recovery perception.

Of 20 studies examining flexibility, 13 found significant improvements after SMR application, particularly in lower limb joints (hip, knee, ankle). Notable results included: Oranchuk et al. showing FR improved straight leg raise by 7.3% (p<0.001) and FR+heat by 13.1% (p<0.001); Guillot et al. finding improvements of 8.2–20.6% in various flexibility tests (p=0.002–0.004); and Behara & Jacobson demonstrating 15.6% improvement in hip flexion ROM with FR. However, some studies found dynamic stretching or combined protocols outperformed isolated SMR. For strength, 7 of 17 studies showed positive results, mostly in jumping performance.

Romero-Franco et al. found CMJ height increased 4 cm with FR (p<0.001); Richman et al. showed CMJ improved 2.63 cm and squat jump 1.72 cm with FR+DS (p=0.021 and p=0.022); and Peacock et al. found significant improvements in vertical jump (p=0.012), horizontal jump (p=0.007), and bench press 1RM (p=0.024). However, many studies found no strength benefits. For speed, only 2 of 9 studies showed significant results: D'Amico found 800m run time improved by 1.7 seconds with SMR (p<0.05), and Peacock et al. found 37m sprint time improved (p=0.002). For agility, 4 of 7 studies found benefits, with significant improvements in hexagon test (p=0.03), t-test (p=0.028), and pro-agility test (p=0.001).

For recovery, Rey et al. found better total quality of recovery (12.67 vs. 15.00, p=0.018) and visual analogue scale scores (4.83 vs. 5.6, p=0.045) with FR versus passive recovery; Rahimi et al. found lower Hooper questionnaire scores on match days 2 and 3 (p=0.01 and p=0.005); and Michalski et al. found improved muscle electrical activity after hamstring rolling (p<0.001).

For athletes and coaches, this review suggests SMR can be a useful tool for improving flexibility and range of motion, particularly when combined with dynamic stretching or as part of a comprehensive warm-up. The evidence supports using SMR for 30–60 seconds or longer per muscle group, with sufficient pressure. SMR appears safe—it does not negatively affect muscle performance in strength, speed, or agility tasks, even when benefits are not demonstrated. For recovery, SMR shows promise in improving perceived recovery and reducing delayed-onset muscle soreness, making it a reasonable addition to post-training routines.

However, the evidence does not strongly support using SMR specifically to enhance maximal strength, power, or general speed performance. The review highlights that SMR should be considered primarily for flexibility, ROM, and perceptual recovery benefits rather than as a performance enhancer for explosive or high-intensity activities. The heterogeneity in study protocols, tools used, and application methods means no single optimal SMR protocol can be recommended. Athletes and clinicians should apply SMR with clear objectives in mind, focusing on the variables where evidence is stronger, and consider that light exercise as active recovery may be more effective than foam rolling alone for minimizing fatigue-related performance declines.