# Comparative Effects of an Acute Bout of Self-Myofascial Release on the Plantar Fascia Using Auramat® Versus Traditional Warm-Up on Quadriceps Function and Flexibility

## TL;DR

This study compares the effects of using Auramat® for self-myofascial release versus a traditional warm-up on quadriceps function and flexibility, finding both improve flexibility but with differences in perceived exertion.

## Contribution

The study is the first to investigate the effects of Auramat® on posterior-chain flexibility and knee extensor function compared to traditional warm-up.

## Key findings

- Both Auramat® and traditional warm-up improved posterior-chain flexibility, but traditional warm-up had a larger effect.
- Neither Auramat® nor traditional warm-up significantly affected knee extensor force production or rate of force development.
- Traditional warm-up resulted in significantly higher perceived exertion compared to Auramat®.

## Abstract

Background: Self-myofascial release (SMFR) is a treatment whose main benefits are enhanced recovery and increased flexibility without impairing athletic performance. Previous research has often targeted the posterior myofascial chain (superficial back line, SBL), which runs from the plantar fascia to the posterior cranium and is commonly linked to hamstring-related outcomes. However, its potential influence on knee extensor force production remains unclear and would likely be indirect. Many SMFR tools have entered the market in recent years, with Auramat® being one of them, yet it has not been investigated to date. Therefore, this study aimed to determine the effects of Auramat® (AUR) on posterior-chain flexibility and knee extensor (KE) function and to compare them with those of a traditional warm-up (TW). Methods: This study was a randomised, counterbalanced, cross-over design where 20 recreationally active participants (12 males, 8 females; age = 27.20 ± 4.98 years) attended the laboratory 3 times over a 2-week period. The first week consisted of a familiarisation session during which participants performed several tests. In the second week, the groups that were randomly assigned at AUR or TW conditions performed the two intervention protocols separated by 48 h. The pre-post ratings of perceived exertion (RPE), maximal voluntary isometric contraction (MVIC), straight leg raise test (SLRT) and rate of force development (RFD) were measured. All tests were performed on the dominant limb. Results: There was no significant difference in RFD and MVIC for conditions (p = 0.91), time (p = 0.24), or condition × time (p = 0.41). Both conditions improved posterior chain flexibility (p ≤ 0.01) with a larger effect in TW (d = 2.03; ↑ 7.81%) compared to the AUR condition (d = 0.89; ↑ 3.69%). RPE for TW showed significant higher RPE values compared to the AUR condition (p ≤ 0.01; ES = 2.32; TW = 4.3 ± 1.45 vs. AUR = 1.55 ± 0.82). Conclusions: Both SMFR with AUR and TW increased flexibility without any significant reduction in KE force production. Practitioners may use TW in a session where the aim is an increase in flexibility and AUR when the time is limited and the increase in fatigue can be relevant, due to the lower RPE reported. In any case, these results should be taken with caution since even the AUR was more time-efficient; the findings are preliminary owing to the small sample and absence of a control condition.