# Effects of post-match foam rolling, static stretching, and passive rest on acute cardiac-autonomic, hemodynamic, and neuromuscular recovery in national wrestlers

## TL;DR

This study compares foam rolling, static stretching, and passive rest for recovery in wrestlers, finding modest benefits for foam rolling on heart function.

## Contribution

The study provides empirical evidence on recovery strategies for wrestlers, focusing on cardiac-autonomic and neuromuscular recovery.

## Key findings

- Foam rolling showed higher heart rate variability recovery compared to passive rest.
- Mean arterial pressure was lower with foam rolling versus passive rest.
- No significant differences in neuromuscular performance across recovery methods.

## Abstract

Practical strategies that facilitate rapid restoration of cardiovascular and neuromuscular function are needed to support the short recovery window between matches in high-level wrestling tournaments. This study compared the effects of post-match foam rolling (FR), static stretching (SS), and passive rest (PR) on cardiac-autonomic, hemodynamic, and neuromuscular performance markers in national-level wrestlers. Sixteen male wrestlers (weight class range: 57–92 kg, ≥ 5 years of wrestling experience) participated in this randomized crossover study. Recovery interventions were performed on separate days immediately following a maximal-intensity match simulation. Heart rate variability (HRV), brachial blood pressure (BP), and countermovement jump (CMJ) parameters were measured pre-match, post-match, immediately post-recovery, and 10 min post-recovery. Across all recovery methods, HRV parameters showed progressive but incomplete recovery following post-match reductions (p < 0.05), while transient post-match BP increases were followed by a hypotensive response (p < 0.05). CMJ parameters were reduced at all post-match time points, with the greatest impairment observed immediately post-recovery (p < 0.05). Although no condition × time interactions were observed (p > 0.05), Hedges’ g effect sizes showed that at 10 min post-recovery, HRV parameters were higher for FR (g = 0.62–0.95), and to a lesser extent for SS (g = 0.54–0.69) versus PR. Mean arterial pressure was lower for FR versus PR (g = -0.69) at the same time point. While effect sizes suggest modest HRV recovery benefits favoring FR with neutral CMJ effects, the lack of statistical significance provides no conclusive evidence to recommend these modalities over PR for post-match recovery.

Clinical trial number

Trial registration: NCT07305506 (Registered date: 12 December 2025). This study was retrospectively registered on https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT07305506.

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13102-026-01646-4.