Biology of Sport
eISSN: 2083-1862
ISSN: 0860-021X
Biology of Sport
Current Issue Manuscripts accepted About the journal Editorial board Abstracting and indexing Archive Ethical standards and procedures Contact Instructions for authors Journal's Reviewers Special Information
SCImago Journal & Country Rank


4/2021
vol. 38
 
Share:
Share:
more
 
 
abstract:
Original paper

Acute effects of dynamic versus foam rolling warm-up strategies on physical performance in elite tennis players

Alvaro Lopez-Samanes
1
,
Juan Del Coso
2
,
Jose Luis Hernández-Davó
3
,
Diego Moreno-Pérez
4
,
Daniel Romero-Rodriguez
5
,
Marc Madruga-Parera
5
,
Alejandro Muñoz
1
,
Victor Moreno-Pérez
6

1.
Exercise Physiology Group, School of Physiotherapy, Faculty of Health Sciences, Universidad Francisco de Vitoria, Madrid, Spain
2.
Centre for Sport Studies, Rey Juan Carlos University, Fuenlabrada, Spain
3.
Faculty of Health Sciences, University Isabel I, Burgos, Spain
4.
Department of Education, Research and Evaluation Methods, Comillas Pontifical University, Madrid, Spain
5.
University School of Health and Sport (EUSES), University of Girona, Girona, Spain
6.
Sports Research Centre, Miguel Hernandez University, Elche, Spain
Biol Sport. 2021;38(4):595–601.
Online publish date: 2021/01/14
View full text
Get citation
ENW
EndNote
BIB
JabRef, Mendeley
RIS
Papers, Reference Manager, RefWorks, Zotero
AMA
APA
Chicago
Harvard
MLA
Vancouver
 
To date, there is a lack of information about the optimal conditions of the warm-up to lead to a better performance in elite tennis players. The aim of this study was to compare the effects of two different warm-up protocols (dynamic vs. self-myofascial release with foam rolling) on neuromuscular variables associated with physical determinants of tennis performance. Using a crossover randomised experimental design, eleven professional men tennis players (20.6 ± 3.5 years) performed either a dynamic warm-up (DWU) or a selfmyofascial release with foam rolling (SMFR) protocol. DWU consisted of 8 min of dynamic exercises at increasing intensity and SMFR consisted of 8 min of rolling on each lower extremity unilaterally. Just before (baseline) and after completing warm-up protocols, players performed a countermovement jump (CMJ), the 5-0-5 agility test, a 10-m sprint test and the Straight Leg Raise and Thomas tests to assess range of motion. Compared to baseline, the DWU was more effective to reduce the time in the 5-0-5 test than SMFR (-2.23 vs. 0.44%, respectively, p = 0.042, ηp2 = 0.19). However, both warm-up protocols similarly affected CMJ (2.32 vs. 0.61%, p = 0.373, ηp2 = 0.04) and 10-m sprint time changes (-1.26 vs. 1.03%, p = 0.124, ηp2 = 0.11). Changes in range of motion tests were also similar with both protocols (p = 0.448–1.000, ηp2 = 0.00–0.02). Overall, both DWU and SMFR were effective to prepare well-trained tennis players for highly demanding neuromuscular actions. However, DWU offered a better preparation for performing change of direction and sprint actions, and hence, in high-performance tennis players, the warm-up should include dynamic exercises.
keywords:

Post-activation potentiation, Dynamic stretching, Vertical jump, Sprint, Range of motion, Racket sports

 
Quick links
© 2021 Termedia Sp. z o.o. All rights reserved.
Developed by Bentus.
PayU - płatności internetowe