Background: Foam rolling (FR) has become very popular in recent years; however, the practice of FR between sets of resistance training (RT) for the lower limbs needs further examination. Purpose: Therefore, the purpose of the present study was to examine the effect of FR for the agonists (quadriceps) and antagonists (hamstrings) between multiple sets of the leg extension on repetition maximum performance (RM), fatigue resistance index (FRI), and muscle soreness (MS). Study design: Quasi-experimental clinical trial. Methods: Twenty trained men participated in this study (30.35 ± 6.56 years, 1.77 ± 0.05 cm, 87.70 ± 7.6 kg) and attended seven sessions with 48 h between sessions, (one familiarization session; two 10-RM test and retest sessions; and four experimental sessions). The four experimental sessions were performed in random order and included: agonist foam rolling (AFR), antagonist foam rolling (ANTFR), agonist/antagonist foam rolling (A/ANTFR), and traditional control (TP, without foam rolling). All sessions consisted of three sets for maximal repetitions with a 10-RM load for the leg extension. In the AFR and ANTFR sessions, there was a 120 s rest interval between sets, during which FR was done for the agonists or antagonists, respectively. In the A/ANTFR protocol, there was a 120 s rest interval between sets, during which FR was done for the agonists and antagonists. In the traditional protocol (TP), there was a 120 s passive rest interval between sets. Results: Regarding the total training volume (TTV), significant differences were noted between sessions (F_3,57 = 11.014; p = 0.0001). The AFR, ANTFR, and A/ANTFR sessions had significantly higher TTV versus the TP (p < 0.05). Regarding the FRI, significant differences were noted between sessions (F_3,57 = 2917, p = 0.042). A significantly higher fatigue index was shown for the ANTFR and AFR sessions versus the TP (p < 0.05). Regarding the total number of repetitions, significant differences were noted between sessions (F_3,57 = 11.086, p = 0.0001). The total number of repetitions was significantly higher in the A/ANTFR, ANTFR, and AFR versus the TP session (p < 0.05). MS was significantly lower in the A/ANTFR, ANTFR, and AFR sessions versus the TP session (p < 0.05). Conclusion: In conclusion, foam rolling between sets for the agonist or antagonist separately or in succession, resulted in greater neuromuscular performance and higher fatigue indices, as well as reducing the perception of acute muscle soreness.

中文翻译：

---

总训练量和肌肉酸痛参数在两组之间进行激动剂或拮抗剂泡沫滚动

背景：近年来，泡沫轧制（FR）变得非常流行。但是，对下肢的阻力训练（RT）之间的FR练习需要进一步检查。目的：因此，本研究的目的是检验FR对多组腿部伸展之间的激动剂（股四头肌）和拮抗剂（ham绳肌）对重复最大性能（RM），耐疲劳指数（FRI）的影响，和肌肉酸痛（MS）。研究设计：准实验性临床试验。方法：二十名训练有素的男性参加了这项研究（30.35±6.56岁，1.77±0.05 cm，87.70±7.6 kg），参加了七次训练，每次训练间隔48小时（一次熟悉训练;两次10-RM测试和复测;四个实验阶段）。这四个实验会议以随机顺序进行，其中包括：激动剂泡沫轧制（AFR），拮抗剂泡沫轧制（ANTFR），激动剂/拮抗剂泡沫轧制（A / ANTFR）和传统控制（TP，无泡沫轧制）。所有的练习包括三组最大的重复，腿部伸展的负荷为10-RM。在AFR和ANTFR疗程中，两组之间有120 s的休息间隔，在此期间分别对激动剂或拮抗剂进行FR。在A / ANTFR方案中，两组之间有120 s的休息间隔，在此期间对激动剂和拮抗剂进行FR。在传统协议（TP）中，各组之间有120 s的被动休息间隔。结果：关于总培训量（TTV），各次会议之间存在显着差异（F 和传统控制（TP，无泡沫滚动）。所有的练习包括三组最大的重复，腿部伸展的负荷为10-RM。在AFR和ANTFR疗程中，两组之间有120 s的休息间隔，在此期间分别对激动剂或拮抗剂进行FR。在A / ANTFR方案中，两组之间有120 s的休息间隔，在此期间对激动剂和拮抗剂进行FR。在传统协议（TP）中，各组之间有120 s的被动休息间隔。结果：关于总培训量（TTV），各次会议之间存在显着差异（F 和传统控制（TP，无泡沫滚动）。所有练习包括三组以最大重复，腿部伸展的负荷为10-RM。在AFR和ANTFR疗程中，两组之间有120 s的休息间隔，在此期间分别对激动剂或拮抗剂进行FR。在A / ANTFR方案中，两组之间有120 s的休息间隔，在此期间对激动剂和拮抗剂进行FR。在传统协议（TP）中，各组之间有120 s的被动休息间隔。结果：关于总培训量（TTV），各次会议之间存在显着差异（F 在此期间，分别对激动剂或拮抗剂进行FR。在A / ANTFR方案中，两组之间有120 s的休息间隔，在此期间对激动剂和拮抗剂进行FR。在传统协议（TP）中，各组之间有120 s的被动休息间隔。结果：关于总培训量（TTV），各次会议之间存在显着差异（F 在此期间，分别对激动剂或拮抗剂进行FR。在A / ANTFR方案中，两组之间有120 s的休息间隔，在此期间对激动剂和拮抗剂进行FR。在传统协议（TP）中，各组之间有120 s的被动休息间隔。结果：关于总培训量（TTV），各次会议之间存在显着差异（F_3,57 = 11.014; p = 0.0001）。AFR，ANTFR和A / ANTFR疗程的TTV显着高于TP（p <0.05）。关于FRI，会议之间存在显着差异（F _3,57 = 2917，p = 0.042）。与TP相比，ANTFR和AFR疗程的疲劳指数明显更高（p <0.05）。关于重复的总数，注意到各次之间的显着差异（F _3,57 = 11.086，p = 0.0001）。与TP会话相比，A / ANTFR，ANTFR和AFR中的重复总数明显更高（p<0.05）。在A / ANTFR，ANTFR和AFR疗程中，MS显着低于TP疗程（p <0.05）。结论：总而言之，激动剂或拮抗剂在套组之间的泡沫滚动分别或相继滚动，可导致更好的神经肌肉性能和更高的疲劳指数，并减少对急性肌肉酸痛的感知。